SIR SHADI LAL AND SONS, SHAMLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KANPUR

CIVIL APPEAL No. 960/1975Supreme Court[1988] 2 S.C.R. 8727 November 1987Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: M.H. KANIA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, leased out a house. The lease deed stipulated that the tenant would maintain the premises in good and habitable condition, execute all repairs including annual whitewashing and repairs of fittings at the lessee's expense. The lessors (assessee) would undertake major repairs like repairs against collapse. Initially, for assessment years 1954-55, 1960-61, and 1961-62, the annual letting value was Rs. 36,000 with a deduction of Rs. 6,000 for repairs under Section 24(1)(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessments were reopened, and the Income Tax Officer held the Rs. 6,000 deduction impermissible as the lessee undertook repairs. The annual letting value was determined at Rs. 40,000 with a Rs. 4,000 deduction under Section 24(1)(i)(b). The assessee's claim for Rs. 5,645 for repairs undertaken by them was disallowed in reopened assessments, limiting the allowance to Section 24(1)(i)(b). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal affirmed this.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Regarding the validity of reopening (Issue 1), the Court noted it was not re-agitated before them. On the applicability of Section 24(1)(i)(b) (Issue 2), the Court held that the lease covenant clearly indicated the tenant had undertaken substantial repairs. The obligation was solely on the lessee, and the lessor's obligation for major repairs did not relate to the 'repairs' contemplated under Section 24(1)(i)(b). The Court defined 'repair' as restoration by renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts, not reconstruction of the whole. The comprehensive nature of the tenant's obligations meant the covenant fell under Section 24(1)(i)(b), limiting the allowance for repairs to that provision. The assessee's claim under Section 24(1)(i)(a) was considered unarguable. Regarding the allowance of expenditure in reopened assessments (Issue 3), the Court's decision on Issue 2 implicitly resolved this by limiting the permissible deduction. The Court found no substance in the assessee's contentions and dismissed the appeals. The principle is that a comprehensive tenant covenant for repairs, including maintaining premises in good and habitable condition and executing all repairs, attracts Section 24(1)(i)(b) even if the lessor retains responsibility for major structural repairs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessments for the years 1954-55, 1960-61, and 1961-62 were validly reopened under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the provisions of Section 24(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were applicable to the case? (Mixed law and fact) 3. Whether expenditure not allowed in original assessments could be considered for allowance in reopened assessments under Section 147(a)? (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The covenant for repairs did not exclusively cast the burden on the lessee. Since the lessor also undertook some repairs, Section 24(1)(i)(b) was not attracted, and the benefit of Section 24(1)(i)(a) should be available. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions, but it implies their agreement with the Income Tax Officer's and lower appellate authorities' findings that the lessee had undertaken to bear the cost of repairs, attracting Section 24(1)(i)(b).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(1)(i)(a),Section 24(1)(i)(b),Section 147(a),Section 261

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 ' ~.-.. """'- SIR SHADI LAL AND SONS, SHAMLI A v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KANPUR NOVEMBER 27, 1987 [M.H. KANIA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 24(1)(i)(a) and (b)-Tenant undertaking to 'bear cost of repairs'-Deduction towards cost of 'repairs'-Whether owner entitled to claim deduction on assessable income-Idea of 'repair' -Meaning of.

Words & Phrases: 'Repair'-Meaning. c The appellants, a Hindu undivided family, leased out a house owned by them. The covenant in the lease deed stated that the tenant will maintain and keep the demised premises in good and habitable condition, tenantable, repair, execute all repairs including annual D white washing, repairs of electric and sanitary fittings etc. at the lessee's expenses, and that the lessors shall undertake at their own cost major repairs such as repairs against collapse of the house.

Originally in the assessments for the years 1954-55, 1960-61 and 1961-62, the annual letting value of the properly was arrived at E Rs.36,000 and a deduction of Rs.6,000 was allowed for repairs under s. 24(1)(i)(a) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. Subsequently, the assess- ments were re-opened on

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147(a)

All 33 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →