9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structed on it. One Talakchand Uttamchand Zaveri and his sons and other family members were the owners of the said plot of land together with the structure which was then standing on it. On 10th January, 1952, Talakchand Uttamchand Zaveri and the other co-owners entered into an agreement with one Mulchand Hukmatrai whereunder they leased out the said property to Mulchand Hukmatrai for a period of 99 years on monthly rent of Rs. 1,101. Mulchand Hukmatrai was to get the building then standing on the said plot vacated by the tenants, to demolish it and then to construct one or more buildings in its place at his cost. Pursuant to this agreement, Mulchand Hukmatrai got the said structure vacated by the tenants, demolished the structure and bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessees are the owners of the said land and building. The assessees have contended that they are only lessees in respect of the said land and building. According to the ITO, the assessees were owners of the said property and they were liable to pay income-tax under the provisions of s. 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the suit property for the relevant assessment years. The AAC, in appeal, held that the assessees were only lessees of the property in question and they could not be assessed under s. 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Revenue then appealed to the Income-tax Tribunal, which, however, upheld the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a period of 99 years effective from 1st December, 1961, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,101 ". It further provides that the assessees were to pay to the Zaveris a sum of Rs. 2,202, being the equivalent amount of two months rent as permanent advance payment. From these provisions in the indenture dated l2th December, 1961, it is quite clear that the legal relationship between the Zaveris and the assessees is a relationship of lessors and lessees. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that originally Mulchand was the owner of the building. He relied upon the observations made by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ballygunge Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 409, to the effect that in India it is possible to have a distinct own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clause can make the assessees owners of the building in dispute when the indenture dated 12th December, 1961, under which they derived their title creates only a lease in their favour. It may also be noted that another object clause enables the assessees to take on lease or otherwise acquire the suit property. If the assessees are not the owners of the building, there can be no question of their being assessed under the provisions of s. 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the premises, the questions are answered as follows: Question No. 1 : In the negative. Question No. 2 : Does not arise in view of our finding that the assessees are not the owners of the building in question. Question No. 3.; In the negative. Hence, questions Nos. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
