Case: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Park Hotel Private Limited

by the Tribunal. For the assessment years in question, i.e., 1975-76 to 1979- 80, the ITO sought to include the rental income received by M/s Surrendra Overseas in the assessment of the assessee. The assessee objected to the same contending that inasmuch as it has transferred a portion of its leasehold interest in favour of M/s Surrendra Overseas, the income received from the properties so transferred to M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. cannot be included in its total income. The ITO rejected the objection relying upon Sri Ganesh Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal), Sakarchand Chhaganlal vs. CED (Guj) and Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal) 4. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) who recorded a finding that "the income from the leasehold property should be assessed under the head business". He did not give any specific direction with respect to the quantum of income. Pursuant to the appellate order, the ITO passed an order under s. 251 of the Act giving effect to the appellate order. He assessed the income from leasehold property as income from business Against the order of the CIT(A) aforesaid (dt. 5th Oct., 1982) the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal contending that the CIT(A) was not justified in directing the income from leasehold property to be assessed as income from business. According to Revenue, it was liable to be assessed as income from house property. The Tribunal dismissed this appeal The assessee preferred an appeal against the aforesaid orders of the ITO passed under s. 251 of the Act. The CIT(A) while affirming his earlier order that the said income should be assessed as income from business, held that the income received by M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. from the properties sub-leased to it, should not be included in the total income of the assessee. Against this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to its aforementioned orders in the appeal preferred by M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. and held that in the absence of a registered deed of sub-lease, the assessee continued to be liable to tax on the income received from the said property. It rejected the contention of the assessee that the said income was only a notional one and not actual or real income. The Tribunal directed that (i) the income from leasehold property should be assessed as income from business and (ii) that the income which has to be assessed as income from business from leasehold interest, should be the income as received by M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. The assessee thereupon applied for and obtained the reference of the above question for the opinion of the High Court 5. We must pause here and mention a fact to clear the ground. While setting out the facts in its judgment, the High Court has stated a new fact which we are not able to find either in the order of the Tribunal or in the order of the CIT(A). The High Court has observed that "a multi-storeyed building had been constructed in the said portion under sub-lease and M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd., had let out the same to various tenants and has been collecting rent from such tenants". In the context in which the said observation occurs, it gives an impression as if the High Court was saying that the multi-storeyed building was constructed by M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. in the premises sub-leased to it, though not so stated specifically. We are, however, of the opinion that in the absence of any specific statement to that effect, it would not be proper to read the said observation as stating that the multi-storeyed complex was constructed by M/s Surrendra Overseas. None of the orders of the authorities under the Act say that Surrendra Overseas had constructed a multi-storeyed structure in the premises subleased to it by the assessee. We shall, therefore proceed on the footing that the multi-storeyed building referred to by the High Court was constructed by the assessee itself and that the sub-lease in favour of M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. was of certain premises including the said multi-storeyed building. We are saying so also because in a reference under s. 256(1), no new facts can be introduced by the High Court. Now coming to the merits, we are of the opinion that the matter must go back to the High Court for more than one reason. Firstly, it is not clear to us whether the question referred pertains only to one issue, viz., whether the income received by Surrendra Overseas should be included in the total income of the assessee or does it also comprehend the other issue, viz., whether the said income should be assessed under the head "income from house property" or under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". The question as framed is capable of being construed both ways. In this connection, a fact to be noted is that on an earlier occasion the Tribunal had opined that the said income should be assessed as income from business. Whether that issue got concluded then itself or was it also in issue in the present proceedings ? If it was not in issue in the present proceedings, then why did the High Court refer to the decision in S. G. Mercantile Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) which deals with this issue only ? This matter requires to be clarified. Secondly, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself to the main issue upon which the Tribunal had allowed the Revenues appeal, viz., inasmuch as the sub-lease was not effected under a registered document, interest in the property does not pass and, therefore, the income in question continues to be the income of the assessee. It has also not dealt with the reasoning of the Tribunal that by accepting the assessees plea, the income in question would go untaxed altogether inasmuch as the said income has been held not taxable in the hands of M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. We must pause here and mention a fact to clear the ground. While setting out the facts in its judgment, the High Court has stated a new fact which we are not able to find either in the order of the Tribunal or in the order of the CIT(A). The High Court has observed that "ad building had been constructed in the said portion undersubleaseand M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd., had let out the same to various tenants and has been collecting rent from such tenants". In the context in which the said observation occurs, it gives an impression as if the High Court was saying that thed building was constructed by M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. in the premisesd to it, though not so stated specifically. We are, however, of the opinion that in the absence of any specific statement to that effect, it would not be proper to read the said observation as stating that thed complex was constructed by M/s Surrendra Overseas. None of the orders of the authorities under the Act say that Surrendra Overseas had constructed ad structure in the premisesd to it by the assessee. We shall, therefore proceed on the footing that thed building referred to by the High Court was constructed by the assessee itself and that thesubleasein favour of M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd. was of certain premises including the saidd building. We are saying so also because in a reference under s. 256(1), no new facts can be introduced by the High Court. Now coming to the merits, we are of the opinion that the matter must go back to the High Court for more than one reason. Firstly, it is not clear to us whether the question referred pertains only to one issue, viz., whether the income received by Surrendra Overseas should be included in the total income of the assessee or does it also comprehend the other issue, viz., whether the said income should be assessed under the head "income from house property" or under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". The question as framed is capable of being construed both ways. In this connection, a fact to be noted is that on an earlier occasion the Tribunal had opined that the said income should be assessed as income from business. Whether that issue got concluded then itself or was it also in issue in the present proceedings ? If it was not in issue in the present proceedings, then why did the High Court refer to the decision in S. G. Mercantile Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) which deals with this issue only ? This matter requires to be clarified. Secondly, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself to the main issue upon which the Tribunal had allowed the Revenues appeal, viz., inasmuch as thesubleasewas not effected under a registered document, interest in the property does not pass and, therefore, the income in question continues to be the income of the assessee. It has also not dealt with the reasoning of the Tribunal that by accepting the assessees plea, the income in question would go untaxed altogether inasmuch as the said income has been held not taxable in the hands of M/s Surrendra Overseas Ltd