TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Saligram Premsukh and Co. and Saligram and Co. (P.) Ltd., who paid a rent of Rs. 6,000. The Income-tax Officer, in the assessment order for 1973-74, added Rs. 12,000 rent as regards the first floor and Rs. 6,000 for the second floor as income of the firm. The firm disputed the amount of Rs. 12,000 but did not dispute the rent of Rs. 6,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the order of the ITO. On further appeal, the Tribunal remitted the subject-matter for recomputation of rent of the first floor. This order of the Tribunal we will refer to as the first order of the Tribunal. After remand, the Income-tax Officer added Rs. 18,000 as rent derivable from the first floor. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent and that amount was added without any demur as the income from house property. The assessee disputed Rs. 18,000 as the annual letting value of the first floor as it was occupied by two partners for business purposes. This issue was answered against the firm by the Revenue authorities. The correctness of that decision is assailed in the instant question by the assessee. There was a controversy before the Tribunal while the second order was being passed : Whether the issue was decided in the first order of the Tribunal, The Revenue contended it was decided in the first order of the Tribunal. The assessee contended to the contrary. In the second order, the Tribunal held that such a decision was "impliedly" reached in the first order an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above passage and argued that the first floor was occupied for business purposes. The attempt by the Revenue is to show that, as a fact, it was held that the house property was not occupied for business purposes and, therefore, there is no error in the ascertainment of the sum of Rs. 18,000 as rent for the first floor. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in ascertaining the rent after it was held that the first floor was occupied by the partners for attending to the business of the firm. The Tribunal, we hold in the instant case, inferred on the facts that the first floor of the building was not used for business purposes. The correctness of the inference at the instance of the firm is referred to this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on facts that the house property was occupied for the business of the assessee. In CIT v. National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 388, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that tenements were occupied for business purposes. In CIT v. Rasiklal Balabhai [1979] 119 ITR 303, the Gujarat High Court held that a godown was occupied for business purposes. The Delhi High Court in D. L. F. Housing and Construction (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 141 ITR 806 held at page 809 that the fact that the house was occupied for business purposes was not proved. Instances thus can be multiplied. We see from the facts of the, case that the Income-tax Officer found that the business of the firm was to deal in motor vehicles, in Ambassador cars, Bedford ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
