Appellant's Claim of Nil Income from Property Dismissed under Income-tax Act

The appellant's contention that his share in a jointly owned property, not let out and providing no benefit due to other accommodations, should be considered nil income under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the appellant derived benefit from the property and was liable for income assessment. Citing a High Court decision, it concluded that since the appellant resided in the same town for employment and could work from his own house, he was not entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the orders under appeal, dismissing both appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of income from self-occupied property under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.

Analysis:
The appellant, an individual, owned a residential house jointly with family members, with a portion let out and the rest occupied by family members. The appellant himself had a rent-free accommodation provided by his employer. The appellant contended that his 1/3rd share in the house, not let out and not providing any benefit due to his other accommodation, should be considered as nil income under section 23(3) of the Act. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed an income of Rs. 5,605 from the appellant's share in the property for both years. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition.

The appellant argued that since his portion was not let out and he derived no benefit due to his other accommodation, no self-occupied property income should be assessed. The departmental representative contended that the relevant provision referred to a place other than where the assessee was employed, citing a High Court decision in support. The Tribunal considered the concept of co-ownership, noting that possession and benefits of one co-owner are deemed to be shared by all co-owners. It held that the appellant had derived benefit from the property, thus liable for income assessment under section 23.

Referring to the High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that since the appellant resided in the same town for employment and could manage his work from his own house, he was not entitled to the exemption under section 23(3). As there was no contrary view presented, the Tribunal upheld the orders under appeal, dismissing both appeals.

---