9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee's total income liable for assessment in the assessment year 1971-72 ? " The facts leading to this reference are stated hereinafter as follows: The assessee is a limited company. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that accrued interest of Rs. 21,912 on the amount lying with the receiver and invested by him was not liable to assessment. The Income-tax Officer following his earlier orders did not accept the claim of the assessee and included the accrued interest of Rs. 21,912 in the total income of the assessee company. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the sum of Rs. 21,912, being the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner. The Tribunal held as follows: " After the purchase of the property, the assessee instituted suits for eviction against five of the tenants. These tenants had been depositing rents with the Rent Controller. In the suits, the tenants disputed their liability to eviction. At the instance of the assessee, the High Court appointed a receiver from time to time for the realisation of the amounts of rents deposited with the Rent Controller and also rents later on. The receivers were given all the powers under Order 40, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While appointing the receivers, the High Court did not decide as to whom the amounts to be received by the receivers would belong. The decision of the question of ownership reste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the assessee could not be held responsible for the same has not been challenged in this proceeding. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the question must be answered in favour of the assessee. He has also submitted that, as it appears, the earlier orders of the Tribunal have not been challenged. We have considered the rival submissions. It is true that the assessee is the owner of the property. The suit was filed in the High Court by the assessee for eviction of some tenants. The assessee, no doubt, is the owner of the rental income. The receivers were appointed by the High Court to collect the rents deposited with the Rent Controller as well as the further amount if payable by the tenants. But the receivers, who collected the rents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the interest on the unauthorised investments made by the receivers has to be decided by the High Court. It cannot be said that the right to receive the interest income vested in the assessee. If the assessee acquired a right to receive the income, only then income can be said to have accrued to him. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the assessee had any right to receive any part of the interest income earned by the joint receivers by their unauthorised act of investments. The interest income was earned by the joint receivers on the investments made by them and they were liable to tax on such income subject to the determination which might have been made by the High Court in the pending proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
