9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the income from the house property has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as the same has not been legally transferred to the wife and remanding the case to theIncome-tax Officer for making a fresh assessment ?" The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows: The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual and derives income from property and hotel business. The assessee is a co-owner of building known as "Sikandar Manzil". During the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught reference but the applications made by the Revenue in that behalf were rejected. The Revenue, therefore, submitted applications before this court under section 256(2) of the Act. Those applications were allowed and the Tribunal was directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion. Now as, regards question No. 1, learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri Rajgarhia, contended that income from the property of the assessee used by a partnership business in which the assessee is also a partner is includible in the taxable income of the assessee. The decision in CIT v. K. N. Guruswamy [1984] 146 ITR 34 (Kar) does support the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue. To appreciate this con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was a partner for carrying on the business of the firm was exempt under section 22 of the Act. With regard to question No. 2, it is difficult to appreciate as to why the Tribunal remanded the case to the Income-tax Officer for examining witnesses to prove the dower debt. No registered deed was executed by the assessee to transfer the property in question valued at over one hundred rupees to his wife in satisfaction of the dower debt. In CIT v. Syed Saddique Imam [1978] 111 ITR 475, a Full Bench of this Court has held that a gift by a Mohammedan to his wife in lieu of the dower debt is not a true "hibabil-iwaz" but is really a sale of property and if there is no registered deed evidencing the transfer, there is no valid transfer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
