1983 PLP 369 (PTD)
SHIKHARCHAND LAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, MADHYA PRADESH‑II, BHOPAL
| Citation | 1983 PLP 369 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Madhya Predesh High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, .J |
| Parties | SHIKHARCHAND LAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, MADHYA PRADESH‑II, BHOPAL |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 369 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 369 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Madhya Predesh High Court (India) bench comprising: G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, .J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 369 (PTD) (SHIKHARCHAND LAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, MADHYA PRADESH‑II, BHOPAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑ Exemption‑Availability of‑Nexus between assessee's not living in his house and needs of his business must be proved. Some nexus between the fact of the assessee residing in a building not belonging to him and his employment, business or profession must be shown before the benefit can be claimed in respect of the residential house which is not occupied by him. Where such nexus has not been established and the who was a bachelor, lived for his own convenience with his father in the same town, the benefit will not be available to the assessee in respect of his own house which was not left vacant by him on account of compulsion of business. B. L. Nema for Applicant. B. K. Rawat for the Opposite‑Party.
Judgment & Decree
G. P. SINGH, C. J.‑‑,The question of law referred in this reference under S. 256 (1) of the Income‑tax Act, 1.961, by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal "Whether on the facts and an the circumstance of the case, there is justification in law to hold that the applicant is not entitled to exemption under section 23(3) (a) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961 ?"
2. The reference relates to assessment years 1969‑70 to 1972‑
73. The facts found by the Tribunal are that the assessee lives with his father in the same town where the house in respect of which the relief under section 23 (3) is claimed is situated. The distance between the two houses is two miles. The assesses is a bachelor and, therefore, for his convenience resides with his' father. The Tribunal clearly bound that it was not shown that by living in his own house the assesses cannot look after the partnership business of manu facturing bidi. It was further found that the assesses had not left his house vacant on account of compulsion of business, but on account of his personal convenience. A reading of section 23 (3) of the Act will go to show that the assesses has to prove, for getting the benefit of that provision, that the residential house could not be occupied by him by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at any other place, he has to reside at that other place in a building not belonging to him. Some nexus between the fact of residing in a building not belonging to the assessee and his employment, business or profession must be shown before the benefit under section 23 (3) can be claimed in respect of the residential house which is not occupied by the assessor. On the findings reached by the Tribunal, this nexus or connection has not been restablisbed. The assessee, therefore, is not entitled to the exemption.
3. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred as follows "There was justification in law to hold that the‑.assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 23 (3) of the Act." There will, be no order as to costs. M. Z. M. Answer in the affirmative.