TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t not to have upheld the inclusion of an income of Rs. 5,605 in the total income of the appellant. " 2. The assessee is an individual earning income from salary, interest on securities, property, capital gains and other sources. Along with his mother Mrs. Aruna Seth and brother Shri Vikramjit Seth the assessee owned a residential house at 21, Golf Links,New Delhi. A portion of the said house was let out at a rent of Rs. 4,500 p.m. Out of the remaining portions the assessee's brother and mother occupied certain portions for their own residence. The assessee himself was in the employment with SGS India Pvt. Ltd. His employer company had allotted him a rent free accommodation at 3,Western Avenue, Maharani Bagh,New Delhi. 3. For the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee are in connection with his employment with SGS(I) Pvt. Ltd. situate at Delhi and, therefore, the assessee could not take the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act. In support of her arguments the learned departmental representative relied upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Shikharchand Jain v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 552 where it was held that where the assessee, who owned a residential house, lived in the same town in a different house owned by his father for purposes of personal convenience and it was not shown that by living in his own house the assessee could not look after his business of manufacturing bidis, the assessee would not be entitled to the exemption under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also derived benefit from the property in question and, therefore, he was liable to be assessed for income from self-occupied property under section 23 of the Act. 5A. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Shikharchand Jain supports the view point of the learned departmental representative. There is no view on the point before us contrary to that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as mentioned above. On the basis of the said decision we hold that since the assessee was residing in the same town, i.e., Delhi for purposes of his employment and it was not shown to us that by living in his own house the assessee could not look after his employment,we hold that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
