TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demised premises and set up a market therein commonly known as " Mangla Hat ". The assessee claimed before the ITO that the income derived from these stalls should be assessed under ss. 22 to 27 of the I.T. Act, 1961, but the ITO rejected the contention and assessed the income under the head " Other sources ". On appeal by the assessee, the AAC confirmed the order of assessment subject to certain modifications. The assessee preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that these stalls were not either ramshackle in nature or temporary sheds as argued by the department. The Tribunal found that these stalls were built to last for a number of years and were almost permanent in nature and were erected on cement plinths wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e property under sections 22 to 27 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not as income from other sources under s. 56 of the said Act ? " Mr. B. L. Pal, learned counsel for the revenue, argues before us that these stalls are not " buildings " within the meaning of that word used in s. 22 of the Act. In support of this contention, he places reliance on the " marginal heading " of s. 22 and argues that the word " building " has been used in the sense of a " house property " which should be used for residential purpose in view of the decision in the case of Rowe and Co. v. Secretary of State, AIR 1921 Low Bur 30, in which it has been held that s. 8 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1918, as it then stood, deals with the house property which is used for res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are permanently affixed to the ground. They are not box type shops erected temporarily, nor they are capable of being shifted from place to place. They were erected long ago. The stallholders are using them for selling their merchandise and they can also use these stalls for storing their goods. The assessee is the owner of these stalls during the period of this long lease. Further, there is nothing in the deed of lease even to suggest that these stalls are not buildings. Therefore, and in view of the aforesaid facts found by the Tribunal, the conclusion reached by it that these stalls are " buildings " within the meaning of s. 22 of the Act cannot be regarded as perverse. Similarly, it should be held that the Tribunal was right in hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
