COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MOHAMMAD AMIN TYAMBOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is an individual. He is a partner of the firm, M/s. M. A. Ramzana, in which his son, Javeed Ahmad, has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. THE assessee owns house property which is self-occupied for his residence. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed his return of income and determined the annual letting value of the said property at Rs. 4,420, but limited the assessable amount to Rs. 2,638 only. His contention was that the 10% limit as contemplated by Section 23(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly " the Act "), was relatable to the total income of the assessee without including therein the minor's income assessable in his hands under Section 64 of the Act. THE ITO repelled the contention. On appeal, the AAC disagreed with the ITO and upheld the con- tention. Feeling aggrieved the department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal preferred the view taken by the ITO and reversed the order passed by the AAC observing :

(2.) AND again as under :

(3.) A slight consideration of these provisions makes it clear that the benefits of the relief in respect of self-occupied property is available only to an individual assessee. No other assessable entity can claim this benefit. The reference to occupation for the purposes of " his own residence " unmistakably shows that the owner in question must be a natural person, that is, what is known in income-tax law as " an individual ". Therefore, when the proviso speaks of total income of the owner, it is in this sense that the word "owner" has been used in it. It has no other significance. It does not limit or restrict the meaning of the expression " total income ", which has to be understood as it is denned in Clause (45) of Section 2 of the Act. Under that definition the "total income " means " total amount of income referred to in Section 5 computed in the manner laid down in this Act ". Section 5 reads thus :