TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty as itself held by the Tribunal? - 4. Whether Tribunal is justified in making distinction between the 'prompt' and 'deferred dower debt'?" - There is no any illegality in the order of the Tribunal holding that under the Muslim law a husband is liable to pay dower to his wife. Therefore, questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 25-11-2004 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., P. KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P. Krishna J.- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to the extent of Rs. 1,37,593 in a property known as Skylark. He further has shown in the balance-sheet a sum of Rs. 70,000. In the note appended to the balance-sheet it was mentioned that a sum of Rs. 70,000 was taken as a loan from one Dhruv Kumar Gupta. After calling for an explanation on various points the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, a certain directions were given to the Income-tax Officer by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Those directions were taken into account by the Income-tax Officer while framing the assessment order. Thereafter a notice under section 263 of the Act was issued on January 25, 1984, by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Gupta. Besides it, the assessee had clarified the position in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1981-82. On the question of transfer of property at Naval Kishore Road not under a registered deed, the Tribunal accepted that there was no transfer of property but was of the opinion that there was nothing in Muslim law to prevent a husband from choosing to pay the dower debt or the wife from accepting it. It was of the view that since the entire matter has been carefully gone into and examined by the Income-tax Officer before making the assessment in the assessment year 1977-78 and in the reassessment proceedings of the assessment year 1978-79, no further enquiry was required. Heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. In the case in hand, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax rightly exercised the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, as proper enquiries had not been made by the Income-tax Officer while framing the assessment orders. The Tribunal examined the contention of the assessee-respondent with regard to the borrowing of Rs. 70,000 from Shri D.K. Gupta. A supporting affidavit by Shri D.K. Gupta wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife, who is paying water tax and other municipal taxes to the local authority. She has let out the said property and receiving the rents from the tenants. The case of the Department is that indisputably the alleged transfer during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question by the assessee-respondent to his wife is not through a registered document. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Abbas v. Mt. Razia Begum, AIR 1951 All 86 [FB], no transfer of property could take place in the absence of a registered transfer deed. There is no dispute that the assessee-respondent has not executed a registered deed of transfer with respect to the property in question in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 has held that the scope of the expression "property of which the assessee is owner" used in section 9 of the 1922 Act and "property owned by the assessee" used in section 32 of the 1961 Act, is the same. This court has held that the expression "building owned by the assessee" in section 32 of the Act has not been used in the sense of the property, complete title in which vests in the assessee. The assessee will be considered to be an owner of the building under section 32 of the Act if he is in a position to exercise the rights of owner not on behalf of the person in whom the title vests but in his own rights. In our opinion the aforesaid judgment of this court is binding on us for the purpose of section 22 of the Act also. Learned stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
