1979 (2) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad a one-third share in certain immovable property of which he was also in self-occupation. At the time of the original assessments while working out income from this property allowance was given on the basis that the same was self-occupied property. This was done for both the years. Thereafter, the ITO took proceedings under s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for both the years on the footing that the " self-occupied property allowance " was allowed separately to all the occupants instead of restricting it proportionately. Although the assessee objected to the reassessment, the assessee's contentions, both on the propriety of the reassessment as well as on the point on which reassessment proceedings were initiated, were overruled and the income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded a special method of computation of income and if that method was logically applied then to the share of each co-owner, the allowance as was available to a full owner would have to be given also to a co-owner (but obviously restricted to his share). According to the Tribunal, s. 26 contemplated assessment of income from jointly-owned property in the hands of co-owners in separate compartments in accordance with their shares which are required to be ascertained. When the computation of this income is required to be made separately, then, in the view of the Tribunal, the benefit of s. 23(2) cannot be excluded to one of such co-owners who, under s. 26, is treated not along with other co-owners as an association of persons but by a special p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Bejoy Kumar Almal [1977] 106 ITR 743, in which it has been held that the Explanation has retrospective operation. It has been observed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case that when a provision is enacted for the express purpose of explaining or clearing up issues as to the meaning of a previous enactment, such Explanation should normally govern earlier Acts also. According to the Calcutta High Court, the Explanation is prima facie confined to the subject-matter of the prior enactment and governs the same and the presumption is that such an explanatory provision is retrospective. In this view of the matter, the said Explanation, although enacted in 1975, was give....