COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MEHTA HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to directions given by this Court, following question has been referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short the 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C'(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for opinion of this Court:

(2.) The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. A sum of Rs.1,000.00 was paid to the assessee's son for ensuring that the property from which rent was received was kept in good repairs. The assessee claimed the amount of Rs.1,000.00 per month paid as an expenditure. The ITO included the amount in the annual let out value, treating it as a part of the rent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner(in short 'the AAC' ) confirmed the addition. In further appeal before the Tribunal, considering the rival submissions, it came to hold as follows:

(3.) we have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of assessee in spite of notice. According to learned counsel for the Revenue, the claim was a malafide move adopted by the assessee to get the benefit of the amount in question. Section 24(1)(i)(b) applies only if the tenant has undertaken to meet the repairs. There was no understanding in the agreement entered into by the assessee and his son to the effect that tenant was to bear the cost of repairs also. That being the position, in view of factual conclusions as noted by the Tribunal and more particularly the fact that there was no agreement between the landlord and the tenant, the conclusions of the Tribunal are in order. The answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of assessee and against the Revenue.