Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bhawani Kavur Chordia

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—It is not in dispute that the assessee, who was the owner of a building, had entered into an agreement under which

he had parted with possession as also the right to receive the rents. The consideration for the sale of the building was to be paid in instalments and

for the balance of instalments, interest was payable. The agreement is dated January 2, 1980. The consideration for the sale is Rs. 30 lakhs. Rs. 5

lakhs was payable before October 10, 1979, and the balance of Rs. 25 lakhs in five equal instalments starting from April 10, 1980. The vendee

was to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent, on the outstanding unpaid purchase price. Possession of the building was delivered to the vendee on

March 31, 1979.

After taking possession of the building, the vendee put up 5th floor on the building, received all the rentals from the tenants, and was paying

interest on the unpaid purchase price to the vendor in the sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs, during the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 at the end of

which the sale deed was yet to be registered.

The assessee-vendor while filing the return of income, claimed the sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs as income from the property, and also claimed

permissible deductions in respect of that income. The Income Tax Officer accepted that return of the petitioner which referred to the amount as the

rental value of the building, taking into account the actual amounts that were paid by the tenants to the vendee. That order of the Income Tax

Officer was revised by the Commissioner, who held that the notional income from the property was to be assessed in the hands of the vendor and

in addition, the interest received on the unpaid'' purchase price also be assessed in the hands of the vendor under the head ""Income from other

sources"".

On appeal, the Tribunal held that as the assessee had not returned the income under the head ""Income from other sources"", it was not

permissible for the Commissioner to add anything under that head, even though the Commissioner''s powers are plenary and co-extensive with that

of the Income Tax Officer.

Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that that view of the Tribunal was erroneous. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that even if

that view be regarded as erroneous, nevertheless it is required to be held that the assessee cannot be taxed twice in respect of the same income-

once by treating it as notional income from the property and second, as interest actually received on the unpaid purchase price.

So far as the Commissioner''s power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act to revise the income is concerned, there can be no doubt that his powers

are as extensive as those of the Income Tax Officer. However, when it is found that a particular head of income had not been part of the

assessment, the proper course for the Commissioner would have been to send the matter back to the Income Tax Officer to redo the assessment

indicating the additional head under which the income should be considered, if the Commissioner was of the view that such consideration was

required.

So far as the assessee''s liability to be taxed on the rental income of the property is concerned, counsel for the assessee is right in pointing out

that the assessee, though in the eye of law, is still the owner and would continue as such till the registered sale deed is executed, nevertheless for

the purposes of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, the vendor can no longer be regarded as the owner, after she had parted with possession of

the property and had recognised the right of the vendee to receive alt the rentals. For the purposes of Section 22 of the Act, the vendee is required

to be treated as owner as the vendee''s right to receive the rental is not subject to any further consent of the vendor and the amounts are being

received by the vendee in its own right.

The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay etc. Vs. M/s. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. etc., , considered the meaning

of the term ""owner"" in the context of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that Section 22 does not require registration of a sale deed.

The court also observed that assuming that there are two possible interpretations of Section 22, one ''which is favourable to the assessee was

required to be preferred. The court concluded that in the context of Section 22 of the Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having

regard to the object of the Income Tax, namely, to tax the income, the court was of the view that the owner is a person who is entitled to receive

income from the property in his own right. Here, the vendee was the person entitled to receive the rental income in its own right and was required

to be treated as ""owner"" and the vendor could no longer be treated as owner. Though the vendor had claimed that the sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs

received by her as interest on the unpaid purchase price was income from house property and had also claimed deductions permissible under that

head, that claim of the vendor was clearly erroneous.

The interest received by the vendor was required to be treated as ""income from other sources"" and the deduction if any limited to the amount of

the expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning that income.

The Tribunal, therefore, was in error in holding that the interest on the unpaid purchase price could not be taxed in the hands of the vendor

solely on the ground that the vendor had not shown that amount under the head ""Income from other sources"". That conduct of the vendor cannot

serve as a bar to the amount of real income being taxed under the proper head. The powers of the Commissioner extend to requiring the Assessing

Officer to determine the true income under the proper head and bring proper amounts assessable to tax.

The amount that could be taxed was required to be taxed under the proper head, having regard to the nature of the income. The amounts

which could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, having regard to the admitted factual and legal position, could not have been taxed in the

hands of the assessee.

As the computation of income of the assessee for those years is required to be redone on the basis of this order, we remand the matter to the

Income Tax Officer to redo the assessment in accordance with law and in the light of what has been said in the course of this order. The question

referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is answered by holding that while the interest received on unpaid purchase price was taxable under the

head ""Income from other sources"" in the hands of the assessee-vendor, the rental income from the property was not taxable in the hands of the

assessee-vendor.