1982 PLP 36 (PTD)

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN, J.‑This is an application at the instance of the assesses under section 66 of the Income‑tax Act for the decision of this Court on the question whether the Tribunal rightly affirmed the order of the Inspecting Joint Commissioner to revise the assessment made by the Income tax Officer under section 34‑A of the Income‑tax Act. The assessee owns a house in Dhanmndi Residential Area which was rented to the German Cultural Institute before the independence of Bang ladesh. After the independence of Bangladesh there was no change in the ownership and the occupancy of the house in question. However, the assesses introduced a firm allowing them to sublet the house to the said German Cultural Institute and realise rent from them. The firm used to receive rent from the instituted at Taka 15,000 per month whereas the assessee being the owner of the house used to received Taka 4,000 per month from the said firm. This transaction through a third party though believed and accepted by the Income‑tax Officer but was disbelieved by the Inspecting Joint Commis sioner who passes: an order for the revision of the assessment under sec tion 34‑A of the Income‑tax Act. The Tribunal also upheld the order of the Inspecting Joint Commissioner. It appears that both the Inspecting Joint Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently rejected the theory of subletting the house through a firm acting as the house agent. Both the Inspecting Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the aforesaid house agent firm was actually a contractor for collecting rent and such arrangement was disbelieved concurrently by the Inspecting Joint Commissioner and the Tribunal. This is otherwise a question of fact, which cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under section 66 of the Income-tax Act. So far as the provision of section 34-A of the Income-Tax Act is concerned, the Inspecting Joint Commissioner has wide powers to pass any order as the circumstances of the case may justify including an order enhancing the assessment to be made by the Income-Tax Officer. In the present case, in view of the aforesaid provision of law the Inspecting Joint Commissioner did not commit any illegality in directing afresh assessment by the Income Tax Officer when the Inspecting Joint Commissioner disbelieved the story about the introduction of a house agent for subletting the house to the German Cultural Institute. In that view of the matter the Income‑tax Officer or the Deputy Com missioner of taxes whoever may be, is now required to make a fresh assessment taking the assessee as the owner of the house and the occupant thereof being the German Cultural Institute as the tenant in the house the nexus between the owner of the house and the occupant of the house as the alleged land lady and the tenant must be the basis for making the necessary assessments. Since the case will be re‑opened by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes afresh on the aforesaid basis, the assesses will be free to raise objections against the assessments claiming allowances, if any, according to law. In this connection it may, however, be mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes in making the assessment is required to follow the annual valuation of the house as has been assessed by the Inspecting Commissioner and the Tribunal i. e. on the basis of Taka 15,000 per month being the rent of the house paid by the German Cultural Institute to the aforesaid alleged house agent firm. The question raised in the application being answered in the affirmative, this application is rejected. The assessee's prayer for leave to appeal is refused. SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, J.‑I agree. Application rejected