9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1978-79 ? 2. Whether, on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the property owned by it, which was used by its partners for their residence prior to its sale, for the assessment year 1978-79 ? " The two questions have to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal, we shall presently see, has committed an error in accepting the case of the assessee-firm for allowance under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), in respect of the building owned by it and said to be in the possession of the partners who constituted the firm a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dewan Chand Dholan Dass [1981] 132 ITR 790, which has taken notice of the general legal concept of a partnership-firm and the special provisions in this behalf of the Act and noted that, in so far as the requirement for deduction under section 23(2) of the Act is concerned, the words, " a house in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence ", in sub-section (2)(i) and, " more than one house in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence " in sub-section (2)(ii) thereof, refer only to a human owner and not a fictional entity such as the firm or a company. The Delhi High Court's judgment has also taken notice of the decisions on section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not all the partners of the firm are using the property as their residence. It may perhaps be that, subsequently, when the share income of the partner is sought to be assessed in his hands--the share of property income will be assessable in his hands under the same head, vide section 67(2)--and any one or all of them occupying the property may claim pro tanto relief ; but we are not concerned with that question here. " We have heard learned counsel for the assessee in detail. He has not been able to show to us any strong basis for us to make a different view. The consensus of judicial opinion is so well culled out in the Delhi High Court's judgment (see [1981] 132 ITR 790) that we see no necessity either to examine the judgment of the dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
