TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the award granted by the hon'ble High Court. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored." 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Somnath Ukkal, Departmental representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Nitesh Joshi (learned counsel) on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 3. It is noted that the only issue involved here is that whether the impugned property sold by the assessee during the year was acquired, as per law and facts, by the assessee actually before April 1, 1981, or after that. In this regard, the learned Departmental representative has argued as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee became the owner of the impugned property on the basis of award No. 70 of 1986, issued by the hon'ble High Court of Bombay, vide order dated January 21, 1987, and that too by incurring a cost, and, therefore, as per law the property has been acquired by the assessee in 1987, and, therefore, the property should be deemed to be held from 1987, and, therefore, the benefit of indexation should be granted from the said date only. 4. Being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per cent. partner in the firm. Subsequently, the family members decided to separate, settle and distribute the family assets amongst themselves to avoid any dispute in future thereof. The understanding was recorded in agreement dated November 15, 1985. A copy of the agreement is placed at page 2 of the paper book. Regarding some of the immovable properties, a consensus was not arrived at amongst the family members, and, therefore, it was mutually decided by all to appoint a relative Shri L. B. Rungta to decide the issue. The family's immovable properties were settled as per award No. 70 of 1986. The award was filed with the hon'ble High Court of Bombay for its approval. A copy of the award is placed at page 26 of the paper book. The properties were held by individuals, firms and Hindu undivided family, and by this arrangement Hindu undivided family assets were partitioned and other assets were also distributed. To facilitate the implementation of the understanding, it was agreed between the parties that the assets will be transferred at their original cost and the amount receivable and payable by each party to the other will, accordingly, be debited/credited in the books o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee was already having, in one way or the other. In our considered view, the assessee was the beneficial owner of the impugned property since 1963, being 50 per cent. partner in the firm which was owner of the said property. Impliedly, it can also be said that the assessee was holding the property as beneficial owner since 1963. 10. With a view to simplify this issue further, we have analysed the meaning of the expression "held by the assessee", as has been used by the Legislature in section 2(42A). In CIT v. Frick India Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 328 (Delhi), the hon'ble Delhi High Court got an occasion to elucidate and explain the meaning and scope of this expression. Relevant paras are reproduced below for the sake of clarity (page 333) : "We would like to elucidate and explain the expression, 'held by the assessee' in some detail. General words should normally receive plain and ordinary construction but this principle is subject to the context in which the words are used as the words reflect the intention of the Legislature. The words have to be construed and interpreted to effectuate the object and purpose of the provision, when they are capable of multiple m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and claim possession thereof as a tenant." 11. Similarly, the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ved Parkash and Sons (HUF) [1994] 207 ITR 148 (P&H) further explained the meaning of this expression as under (page 154) : "As is clear from a bare reading of section 2(42A) of the Act, the word 'owner' has designedly not been used by the Legislature. The word 'hold', as per dictionary meaning, means to possess, be the owner, holder or tenant of (property, stock, land . . .). Thus, a person can be said to be holding the property as an owner, as a lessee, as a mortgagee or on account of part performance of an agreement, etc. Conversely, all such other persons who may be termed as lessees, mortgagees with possession or persons in possession as part perform ance of the contract would not in strict parlance come within the purview of 'owner'. As per the Shorter Oxford Dictionary Edition 1985, 'owner' means one who owns or holds something ; one who has the right to claim title to a thing." (emphasis supplied)" 12. In CIT v. Smt. Rama Rani Kalia [2013] 358 ITR 499 (All), the hon'ble Allahabad High Court has drawn a distinction between....