TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? " The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the aforesaid question concerns its assessment for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1971-72. The assessee owned a house property being half share in building No. 13, M. G. Road, Agra. The said property was being used for purposes of business carried on by a partnership firm, Messrs. Ganeshi Lal and Sons, Agra, in which the assessee's karta, Shiv Mohan Lal and other members were partners in their individual capacity. The Income-tax Officer assessed the annual letting value of the said property as the assessee's income from house property. This action of the Assessing Officer was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income-tax. In the present case, the assessee-Hindu undivided family is the owner of the house property. The business which is being carried on in the property in question, however, is not owned by the assessee. The said business is being carried on by individuals in partnership with other persons. The fact that such individuals are members of the assessee-Hindu undivided family cannot make that business a business carried on by the present Hindu undivided family. Admittedly, the income from that business does not belong to the assessee and is not taxable in its hands. Reliance was placed by learned standing counsel on CIT v. K. N. Guruswamy [1984] 146 ITR 34, in which the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court took the view that where a house p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on therein. In the circumstances of the present case, that cannot happen as the income from business is taxable in the hands of the individuals while the income from house property is taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The fact that the assessee had not been charging any rent from the partnership firm or that in the past the notional income from that property was not being assessed as income of the assessee was not relevant and could not override the specific provisions of section 22. We, therefore, hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the user of the house property by the partnership firm was user thereof by the assessee for purposes of the business car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
