1996 (1) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income as received by Messrs. Surrendra Overseas Limited, be assessed as the income of the assessee from business from leasehold interest ? " Under a deed of assignment, dated September 3, 1966, the assessee obtained the leasehold interest, for the unexpired period of lease, in respect of premises Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and, 15, Park Street, Calcutta, from Credit Transactors. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee executed a sub-lease in respect of a portion of its leasehold interest in favour of Messrs. Surrendra Overseas Limited, another limited com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT [1962] 44 ITR 606 (Cal) ; Sakarchand Chhaganlal v. CED [1969] 73 ITR 555 (Guj) and Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1949] 17 ITR 308 (Cal). The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who recorded a finding that " the income from the leasehold property should be assessed under the head 'Business' ". He did not give any specific direction with respect to the quantum of income. Pursuant to the appellate order, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 251 of the Act giving effect to the appellate order. He assessed the income from leasehold property as income from business. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) aforesaid (dated October 5, 1982), the Revenue filed an appeal b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....btained the reference of the above question for the opinion of the High Court. We must pause here and mention a fact to clear the ground. While setting out the facts in its judgment, the High Court has stated a new fact which we are not able to find either in the order of the Tribunal or in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The High Court has observed that " a multi-storeyed building had been constructed in the said portion under sub-lease and Surrendra Overseas Limited, had let out the same to various tenants and has been collecting rent from such tenants ". In the context in which the said observation occurs, it gives an impression as if the High Court was saying that the multi-storeyed building was constructed by ....