TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the transaction entered into between the assessee and Parmatma Dutt Misra with regard to sub-letting of the disputed properties was an artificial arrangement liable to be ignored in determining the annual letting value thereof? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have determined the annual letting value of properties in dispute on the basis of actual income received by the assessee applicant from those properties and not on the basis of the rental income which had yielded to Parmatma Dutt Misra?" Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The present reference relates to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The applicant is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erties accordingly. For the assessment years in question the Income-tax Officer had held that since the facts of the case were exactly the same as in the past and as discussed in detail in the assessment order for the assessment year 1971-72 the annual letting value of the properties shall be taken at the actual rent realised from the various tenants by Parmatma Dutt Misra plus Rs. 2,400 for the portion occupied for his own residence. In this way, the annual letting value of the properties was taken by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 51,000 for the assessment year 1973-74, Rs. 51,300 for the assessment year 1974-75 and the income from properties was worked out accordingly at Rs. 32,277 for the assessment year 1973-74 and Rs. 38,849 for the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be treated as the income from the property and not the amount which was realised by Parmatma Dutt Misra from the sub-tenants. He further submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the lease deed was not genuine and the findings are perverse. In support of his aforesaid submission, he has relied upon the following decisions. (1) Addl. CIT v. Mrs. Leela Govindan [1978] 113 ITR 136 (Mad); and (2) Bal Kishan Kapoor v. ITO [1996] 219 ITR 141 (Delhi). Learned standing counsel, however, submitted that the Tribunal has found that the lease entered by the applicant with Parmatma Dutt Misra was not genuine as he was a munim in the firm in which the applicant was a partner. Moreover, she had earlier entrusted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there was much difference between the rent which these properties were capable of getting and rent fixed in these agreements. Moreover, Parmatma Dutt Misra was an employee and getting a meagre amount as salary and taking into consideration the aforesaid findings the Tribunal has upheld the finding that the lease deed was not genuine. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and the findings recorded by it are based on appreciation of the evidence and material on record. In the case of Mrs. Leela Govindan [1978] 113 ITR 136 the Madras High Court has held that it is not open to the Revenue to ignore the rent actually received by the assessee who could not claim more than that by reason of the lease deed subject to wh....