TMI Blog1940 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year is 1937-38, the accounting year being November 1935 to November 1936. The assessee was a partner with Bansidhar Ganga Prasad, but the partnership was dissolved on the 31st of March 1936. The partnership carried on business at Agra and at Delhi, but after dissolution the assessee (Messrs. Kunjamal Sons) took over the Agra business and the Delhi business fell to the share of the other partner Bansidhar Ganga Prasad. When the assessee received notice for filing a return he did so showing an income of ₹ 6,704 from property and a loss of ₹ 6,207 from business. No income from money-lending business was shown at all in the return. The Income-tax Officer of Agra was not satisfied with the correctness of the return and he, therefore, issued notice under Section 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act. On receipt of these notices the assessee on the 4th of January 1938 filed a petition and said that certain corrections should be made in the return under Section 22(3) of the Act. He then showed an income from property of ₹ 8,318 instead of ₹ 6,704 and the loss from business was shown as ₹ 6,390 instead of ₹ 6,207 in the original return and an income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r within four months from the date of the High Court's decree and in that event the decree will be fully satisfied. Possession seems to have been delivered to the assessee soon afterwards but the sale deed itself was not executed till the 8th of June 1936. We have already stated that the accounting year of the assessee was November 1935 to November 1936 and the sale deed would therefore fall within the accounting year. Possession had been given in 1934. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that full satisfaction of the decree was obtained in June 1936 and he, therefore, after making certain calculations computed the income of the assessee from this transaction as ₹ 9,777. The assessee himself had shown ₹ 5,000 as income received from one Hari Mohan; to this the Income-tax Officer added a sum of ₹ 9,777 in connection with the transaction of Babulal, making the income of the assessee as ₹ 14,777. He computed the whole income as ₹ 18,000 because he felt that ₹ 200 received as interest from Shiv Narain and other interest received by the ladies should also be added to the income of the assessee and for aught he knew in view of the concealments m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rument of transfer written and registered. It has, however, to be borne in mind that Section 53-A only enunciates the doctrine of part performance and does not in any way invest the transferee with any title in the property of which the transferee might have taken possession, and further the proviso to section 53A shows that if Babulal, for instance, had transferred the property which had been taken posses-sion of by the assessee to some person who had no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof, the assessee ran the risk of losing the property. His title to the property-a title which would be available against the world-became complete only on the execution of the sale deed and the Income-tax authorities were perfectly justified in treating the income as accruing during the accounting year which could be assessed to tax in the assessment year 1937- 38. Question No. 2 has also, therefore, got to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department. We now come to question No. 3, and in that connection certain more facts have got to be stated. We have already indicated in an earlier portion of our judgment that the assessee on the dissolution of partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end of the previous year can be added to the income of the assessee . In neither of these two statements did the assessee claim that there was no succession. We, therefore, repel the contention of the assessee advanced before us that the question of succession arises out of the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner and that that question, as a question of law, ought to have been referred to us. We, therefore, propose to answer the third question after making some verbal alterations in the question. It should be understood that we are not resettling the third question but are simply changing the language of the same so that it might fit with the circumstances enumerated above. The question would run as follows:- Whether on the assumption that the petitioner had succeeded under Section 26(2) of the Act to one of the former partners of the firm the interest of ₹ 546 had been correctly disallowed? Even with this alteration we find that it would have been much better if the income-tax authorities had taken some pain to state clearly as to what the contention of the assessee in this connection was and what the Income-tax authorities themselves thought regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
