Practical ownership under section 22 limits notional property income taxation where buyers already possess and enjoy the flats.

Section 263 revisional power was held to remain available despite pendency of an appeal before the first appellate authority. On section 22, the Tribunal treated ownership in a practical sense tied to possession, enjoyment and entitlement to income, and noted that flats had been handed over under sale agreements before registration. As the purchasers were in possession and had already been assessed on the same income, the notional property income was not assessable again in the assessee's hands. The revision order was accordingly set aside and the quantum matter restored for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment despite the pendency of an appeal before the first appellate authority; (ii) whether, for the purpose of section 22, the assessee could be assessed on notional income from flats already handed over to purchasers but not yet registered, and whether such income could be taxed in the assessee's hands when it had already been assessed in the hands of the purchasers.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment despite the pendency of an appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis: Pendency of an appeal before the first appellate authority did not denude the Commissioner of revisional jurisdiction. The revisional power remained available on the facts considered by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the purpose of section 22, the assessee could be assessed on notional income from flats already handed over to purchasers but not yet registered, and whether such income could be taxed in the assessee's hands when it had already been assessed in the hands of the purchasers.

Analysis: For section 22, ownership is to be understood in the context of the receipt and enjoyment of income, not as mere husk of legal title. The purchasers were in possession and enjoyment under agreements of sale, had paid consideration, and the assessee had no practical right over the income during the relevant period. The Tribunal also applied the rule against taxing the same income twice and noted that the purchasers had been assessed on the same income.

Conclusion: The notional property income was not assessable in the assessee's hands for the period before registration, and the revision order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was set aside, and the quantum matter was restored to the first appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 22, the expression 'owner' is to be construed in its practical sense with reference to the person entitled to the income and enjoying the property, so that mere legal title without beneficial enjoyment does not by itself justify assessment of the same income in the transferor's hands.

---