1984 (8) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ULU NAIDU J.-The following question is referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act): Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 2,400 per annum in respect of two residential units let out for commercial purposes under clause (b) of the second proviso to sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th the same fate. The Tribunal held that the benefit conferred under clause (b) of the second proviso to s. 23(1) of the Act could only be availed of if the building was actually used for residential purposes and not otherwise. In other words, the nature of user of the building let out, according to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, determines grant or denial of relief envisaged by clause (b) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d specified therein and is not dependent upon its user by the tenant to whom the building was subsequently let out. There are no express words employed in the second proviso of s. 23(1) of the Act restricting grant of relief envisaged therein with reference to the subsequent user of the building. In a fiscal enactment, nothing is to be read in and nothing is to be implied. The reasoning adopted by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X