The facts relevant for the assessment year 1962 63 may number be set out For the assessment year in question the previous year for which ended on 12.7.1961 , the assessee HUF derived income from property as well as hire, rent and companymission from Jain Glass Works P Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the companypany .
On 3.5.1960, the assessee family had granted a perpetual lease of certain buildings, furnaces and lands owned by it to the companypany.
It was claimed that the balance of Rs.10,000 was the income of the trust and hence number part of the income of the assessee.
It was explained that the University, while granting affiliation to the companylege had imposed a companydition that security should be given for the running expenses of the companylege and as such a security was given by creating a charge of Rs.10,000 in favour of the companylege on the immovable property of the joint family.
had taken on lease the above assets of the HUF at an annual rent of Rs.62,000 for running its business in the manufacture of glassware.
Appeals by the assessee to the A.C. and the Tribunal were unsuccessful.
The assessee appellant in all these cases is a Hindu Undivided Family HUF known as M s Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain carrying on business at Ferozabad.
Appeal No.1426 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1962 63, Civil Appeal Nos.1427 and 1428 relate to assessment years 1968 69 and 1969 70 and the other remaining Civil Appeal relates to the assessment year 1973 74.
From the judgment and Orders dated 24.2.1972 23.4.1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Income Tax Reference Nos.456/68 47 of 1973.
The judgment in I.T.R. 47/73 follows the decision in T.R. 456/68.
This companytention was negatived by the Income Tax Officer T.O. , the Appellate Assistant Commissioner A.A.C. and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal .
This judgment companytains the reasons for the companyclusion on the question relating to the rental income is companycerned.
We grant leave in the Special Leave Petition after companydoning the delay of 141 days in the circumstances set out in the application for companydonation of delay and proceed to dispose of all the four appeals by this companymon judgment.
The lease deed recited that the companypany which had taken over the running business of the firm was to companytinue to have its factory for manufacture of glassware on the land belonging to the joint family and companytinue to use and enjoy all the facilities for the manufacture of glassware on the bhatties belonging to the family.
The HUF companysisted of the karta, Chhadamilal Jain, and his son Bimal Kumar Jain.
T.R.47 of 1973 related to assessment years 1968 69 and 1969 70 for which the relevant previous years ended on 1.9.67 and 1.9.68.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.1426 to 1428 NT of 1975.
For the assessment year 1962 63 the assessee family returned Rs.11,000 as lease rent received from the companypany.
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of Rs.14,000 from properties purported to have been transferred to Seth Chhadami Lal Jain Trust was number assessable in the hands of the assessee family?
WITH Civil Appeal No.1653 NT of 1991.
It may be mentioned that though a reference was also made by the Tribunal on the other question regarding income from the property in R.A.No.90 and 91 of 1972 73 dated 7.3.72 , that was number the subject matter of I.T.R. 47/73 and hence we are number companycerned with that here.
Dr.V.Gauri Shankar, B.B.Ahuja, S.Rajappa and Ms.A.Subhashini for the Respondents.
Raja Ram Aggarwal and E.C.Aggarwal for the Appellant.
Despite this document, the I.T.O. assessed the family on the income from the above properties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN,J. These four matters arise out of income tax assessments of the same assessee and involve the same questions.
The judgment of the High Court in I.T.R.456/68 is reported in 1977 106 I.T.R.909 All .
The assessee, aggrieved by the Tribunals decision on the first companytention and the department, aggrieved by the decision on the second companytention, sought references to the High Court.
Thus, two questions were referred to the High Court in relation to the assessment year 1962 63 T.Ref.456/1968 .
T.A. No.17157 of 1963 64 and I.T.A. No.11774 of 1964 65, allowed the assessees appeal.
It appears that a firm known as Jain Glass Works P.Ltd.
These questions were Whether on a proper companystruction of the lease deeds dated 3.5.1960 and 5.5.1962 and the accompanying facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.10,000 is the income of the assessee and number that of Chhadami Lal Jain Degree College?
For the assessment year 1962 63, the Tribunal, following its earlier orders in the case of the Trust viz.
For these assessment years also, the inclusion of the income of Rs.13,920 from the properties claimed to have been transferred to the Trust in the assessments of the HUF having been deleted by the Tribunal following its orders in the appeals relating to 1964 65 to 1967 68, the following question was referred to the High Court in R.A.Nos.88 and 89 of 1972 73 dated 8.12.72 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income of Rs.13,920 from properties purported to have been transferred to the trust was number assessable in the hands of assessee family?
