Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M. Chawla on 12 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989 177 ITR 299 Delhi
Author: L Seth
Bench: A Verma, L Seth
JUDGMENT
Leila Seth, J.
1. This application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax is for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law for the decision of this court.
2. The brief facts are that Lal Devi's husband purchased 116, golf Links, New Delhi. On his death and by his will, his widow, Lal Devi was given a life interest in the said property.
3. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The assessed claimed that the income from the abovementioned property should be assessed under the head "Income from house property". But the Income-tax Officer assessed the said income under the head "Income from other sources", as he held that she was not the owner, having only a life interest.
4. The assessed appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and relied on a decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of J. L. Sawhney. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying on the abovementioned decision, accepted the appeal and directed the Income-tax Officer "to treat the rental income as 'income from house property' and allow deduction under section 24 for repairs."
5. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated January 31,1985, confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal observing that since the Appellate Commissioner had followed the order of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of J. L. Sawhney, they would not be justified in taking a contrary view.
6. The Revenue then moved an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that as no reference had been asked for by the Revenue in the earlier years on the facts, it could not "be said to be aggrieved by the order". The application was consequently dismissed in order to "maintain consistency and conformity."
7. It is well-settled that each assessment year is separate and independent and even if the Revenue does not challenged the decision of the Tribunal in an earlier year, it does not preclude it from doing so in later year.
8. It has also been brought to our notice that the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in J. L. Sawhney's case it itself the subject-matter of a reference. This reference, being ITR No. 533 of 1983, is pending in this court.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, a question of law does arise from the order of the order of the Tribunal.
10. In view of the fact that the assessed has relied on the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in J. L. Sawhney's case and in this case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal based their decision on J. L. Sawhney's case, we are of the opinion that a reference should be called for in this case also.
11. Consequently, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court.
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that income from property situated at 116, Golf Links, New Delhi, was assessable as income from house property and not as income from other sources ?"
12. In the result, the application is allowed, but we make no order as to costs.
