9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of his leasehold property?" The disputes relate to the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the property at 15, Shib Thakur Lane, Calcutta. The Wealth-tax Officer noticed that the assessee had taken a lease of this building for 35 years with an option for a further renewal for 35 years. The value of the leasehold property was not disclosed in the return in the first instance. Later, the assessee showed it at 12 times the net rental income which came to Rs. 1,61,888. The Wealth-tax Officer estimated it at Rs. 1,75,680 and included the same in the net wealth of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee claimed deduction under section 5(1)(iv) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bishwanath Chatterjee's case [1976] 103 ITR 536 by the Revenue to lead us to the conclusion that, in order to obtain the benefit of clause (iv), the assessee must be the owner of the property and mere possession or any leasehold right therein was not sufficient to enable him to do so. But that ratio is quite unrelated to the issue. It propounds that unlike a Mitakshara joint family, the Dayabhaga family is based on mere joint possession without joint ownership. In Mitakshara family, both ownership and possession are joint. It does not lay down that the right to beneficial enjoyment does not come within the pale of the words " belonging to " or that there can be no ingredients of belonging without absolute ownership. There is also a fundam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a new building on the security of the demised premises and the lessor had thereby given his consent to the same. The lease itself was for a period of 35 years with an option of renewal for a further period of 35 years. In CED v. Jyotirmoy Raha [1978] 112 ITR 969 (Cal), it was held that (headnote): "Though the word 'belonging' in section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is capable of denoting an absolute title, yet it is not confined to that sense. Even possession of an interest less than that of full ownership could be signified by that word." Similarly, in CWT v. Md. Ismail [1979] 117 ITR 273 (Cal), it was held that (headnote at page 273) : "The right of a lessee under a lease is an interest in property within the meaning o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stification for citing Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (Late) v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888 (SC) on behalf of the Revenue. But that case is also distinguishable. It settles the principle that an unregistered seller continues to be taxable for the asset sold and delivered by reason of not being divested of the legal estate, one part of ownership. The word " belonging" ropes in the holder of empty legal estate. Far from discarding, it relaxes the meaning of " belonging " to include any slice of ownership. Even according to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there are several modes of transferring property. Lease is one of them and involves transfer of a right. It is correct that mortgage is also termed as a transfer of an interest but the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
