Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ashraf-ur-rehman Azimullah - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of i.p.c., d.r. dhanuka, j. 1. by this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the assessee had become the owner of the flat and had occupied it for the purpose of his residence through the convenient medium of the company and that it is not a normal case where the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) should be invoked 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal was justified in holding that to the extent of interest forgone by the assessee in respect of the advance and the corresponding benefit derived by him from the concessional rent, there is a quid pro quo and hence there cannot be said to be a benefit or advantage derived by the assessee ?' 2. the relevant facts having a bearing on question no. 2 are in brief as under : this reference relates to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. at the material time, the assessee was a director and shareholder of messrs. view sea pvt. ltd. the question before the tribunal was as to the perquisite value of the flat occupied by the assessee belonging to the company. the assessee used to pay a rent of rs. 650 per month to the above referred company for user of the said flat. in the opinion of the income-tax officer, the fair rent payable by the assessee in respect of the said flat would work out to rs. 3,000 per month. in this view of the matter, the income-tax officer had computed the perquisite value in respect of the said flat at rs. 25,000. the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner. it was pointed out on behalf of the assessee in the said appeal that the assessee had paid a sum of rs. 1,36,000 by way of advance to the company as interest-free deposit and that the said factor should be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the perquisite value in respect of the said flat. the appellate assistant commissioner accepted the said submission of the assessee in the said appeal and reduced the perquisite value in respect of the said flat by allowing deduction of rs. 13,600 from the above referred amount of rs. 25,000. the income-tax appellate tribunal sustained the order of the appellate assistant commissioner in so far as the perquisite value in respect of the said flat was concerned. 3. learned counsel for the revenue has fairly stated before us that the tribunal does not appear to be in error in taking the above referred factor into consideration while fixing the perquisite value in regard to the said flat. we have also gone through the record carefully and reached the same conclusion. in this view of the matter, question no. 2 referred to us must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. we do so accordingly. 4. in view of our conclusion on question no. 2, it is unnecessary to decide question no. 1 as it has become academic. 5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.