TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax Appeal being ITA No.1724 (Kol) of 2002 for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. The only question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the benefit under Section 22 of the Act, 1961 is available to a co-owner of a house property if part of the said house is occupied for the business of a partnership firm of which the said co-owner is one of the partners. The following facts are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal. a) The assessee is one of the joint co-owners of property being IA and 1B, F, First floor, 101 Park Street, Kolkata. The premises were leas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable to be included in its total income under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" Mr. Dutt, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the assessee being the co-owner of the property and a portion of the same being in occupation of a partnership business of which he is a partner was entitled to the benefit to exemption provided in Section 22 of the Act and has relied upon the following decisions of various High Courts in support of the contention that the findings recorded by the authorities below were erroneous: 1) Commissioner of Income-tax, Guzarat vs. Rasiklal Balabhai, reported in (1979) 119 ITR 303; 2) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial for the purpose of availing oneself of the benefit of Section 22. According to Mr. Banerjee, in order to get the benefit of Section 22 of the Act the owner and the occupier must be same person. In other words, according to Mr. Banerjee, in the case before us, either if the Jayshree Export was the owner of the property it could get benefit or if the assessee was in possession of the property for carrying on his own business or profession in his personal capacity, in that case also, the benefit would have been available to the assessee. Mr. Banerjee, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. In order to appreciate the point involved in this appeal, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in Section 22 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artnership business is chargeable to income tax for which the firm is liable to tax. Therefore, the assessee cannot pray for exclusion of income of the portion in occupation of a partnership firm merely because he is a partner of such business. In our opinion, in order to claim exemption under a taxing statute the provision of the exemption must be strictly construed (Oxford University Press vs. C.I.T reported in AIR 2001 SC 886). Mr. Dutt tried to impress upon us that if more than one view is possible in interpreting a taxing statute, the one favourable to the assessee should be adopted. We are, however, of the opinion that having regard to the plain language of Section 22, there is no scope of any argument that owner of a proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreed upon among the partners and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from partnership of the value of his share in the net partnership assets as on the date of dissolution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges. It is true that even during the subsistence of the partnership a partner may assign his share to another. In that case what the assignee would get would be only that which is permitted by S. 29(1), that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits of the assignor and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners." Thus, a partnership firm cannot take advantage of the ownership of a property owned by its partner in his individual capacity for the purp....