1984 (5) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owner of the felt in the earlier year and in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Liquidator, Mohmudabad Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 470 (Cal), the annual value thereof was liable to be added in her income. He, therefore, added a sum of Rs. 15,000 in this behalf. 2. On appeal, it was argued before the AAC that though the assessee had been given occupation of the flat, the conveyance deed had not been registered in her name during the relevant account year. Therefore, she was not the legal owner of the flat and so national income could arise to her. Reference was made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 637 (Cal), wherein it has been held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also the decision in (1970) 83 ITR 464 in which it was held that assessee whose house property vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property cannot be assessed under this head since the word "owner" must mean, in the context of this section, a person who can exercise the rights of the owner and is entitled to the income from the property; and that this section cannot be so construed. "It is true that equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax law. But, these laws, like all other laws, have to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice. The circumstances of a case may indicate that the assessment should be made not on the person who has the bare husk of the legal title but on the person who has the beneficial own....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court in P. Joseph Swaminathan vs. CIT (1984) 145 ITR 198 (Mad) wherein again it has been held that the province of the ITO to din out who is the real owner of the property so as to fix the liability for income-tax on that owner irrespective of the fact that the property stands registered in the name of another person. It appears that there is some force in the Departmental contention and the Calcutta High Court decision cannot straight away help the assess. What the Calcutta High Court had decided was that unless the owner had transferred his rights in the immovable property he was still liable to tax on the annual value of the house owned by it. It does not necessarily follow that no other person who actually derives income from the sa....