ICI INDIA LIMITED Vs. DY CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the main issue involved in these two appeals filed by the assessee, for the two successive years, is common, the appeals have been consolidated and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The facts of the case, as discussed by both the lower authorities, are as under.

(3.) In the assessment order for the assessment year 1991-92, the assessing officer (assessing officer) made a detailed discussion of the facts as well as of the legal position involved therein. He was of the opinion that under the MoU the assessee merely granted a licence to Reliance to use the basement, ground and first floors of the property and did not exactly hand over the possession in respect of those portions of the property as is required in connection with an outright sale of an immovable property. In this connection, he referred to certain stipulations in the MoU like at paragraph 2 (page 5) stating that the purchaser (Reliance) might carry out repairs and renovations to the licensed premises after giving intimation of the same to the Vendor (the assessee) but without affecting the Vendors' rights and interest into and upon the said property, paragraph 9 (page 9) mentioning that the purchaser shall pay to the Vendor on demand the actual charges for the electricity and water consumed; and also paragraph 11 (page 9) stating that the purchaser shall pay to the Vendor on demand operating and maintenance costs/charges in respect of the aforesaid property and the lifts installed in the said property proportionate to the area in the house of the licensing. On the basis of the above discussion, the assessing officer ultimately held that it cannot be said that possession of the property, or even a part thereof, had been handed over to Reliance in the real sense involving "part performance" of the Agreement for sale. It was contended by the assessing officer that the assessee had merely allowed Reliance to use the property as a licensee.