ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals involve a common question of law. However, the facts in both these appeals are singular in their respective characteristics. Applicability of Section 281 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, as well as Rule 11 of the Second Schedule was called in question in these two appeals. Facts of the case: Jaymac
(2.) JAYMAC India P. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Jaymac India'), had assessed dues on account of income -tax for the assessment years 1982 -83, 1983 -84 and 1984 -85. Jaymac India entered into an agreement for lease with Orient Beverages Limited on llth floor of the premises No. 50, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, against a premium of Rs. 9,49,680. Before the formal deed of lease could be executed in favour of Jaymac India by Orient Beverages Limited, Jaymac India assigned its right in favour of Jay -mac Lasetron P. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Jaymac Lasetron') by an agreement dated September 20, 1984, in consideration of the like amount being Rs. 9,49,680. Jaymac Lasetron paid the premium to Jaymac India and Jaymac Lasetron was put into possession by Jaymac India. Jay -mac Lasetron was accordingly assessed taking into account such leasehold right acquired under the agreement. On March 29, 1990, reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 1983 -84 and 1984 -85 were completed and the tax was imposed on Jaymac India. Admittedly, Jaymac India did not pay the tax levied on it for those three assessment years being 1982 -83, 1983 -84 and 1984 -85. On April 17, 1990, a formal deed of lease was executed by Orient Beverages in favour of Jaymac Lasetron by making Jaymac India a confirmed party. On August 25, 1994, the Income -tax Officer having jurisdiction to assess the tax of Jaymac Lasetron gave notice to furnish evidence of its ownership of the leasehold interest in the premises in question as according to the concerned officer it was a sham transaction and was made only to evade payment of tax outstanding on account of Jaymac India. On February 13, 1996, the Tax Recovery Officer issued prohibitory orders upon the tenants/licensees in respect of the premises in question from making any payment of the licence fee and/or service charges to Jaymac Lasetron for the purpose of recovery of tax due on account of Jaymac India. Objection petitions were filed by Jaymac Lasetron before the Tax Recovery Officer. Since he was not taking any step on those objections petitions the Commissioner of Income -tax was approached by Jaymac Lasetron. The Commissioner heard Jaymac Lasetron and passed a comprehensive order rejecting the revisional application filed before the Commissioner upholding the prohibitory order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer. The appeal filed by Jaymac Lasetron before the Commissioner against the prohibitory order was also dismissed by the Commissioner. The Tax Recovery Officer also issued prohibitory orders in respect of the refund claimed by Jaymac Lasetron. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tax Recovery Officer as well as the Commissioner the writ petition was filed by Jaymac Lasetron. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge (see Jaymac Lasetron P. Ltd. v. CIT . Hence this appeal. Munir Ahmed. One Sk. Barkatullah purchased premises being No. 40A and B, Circus Avenue, Kolkata, by a deed of conveyance dated March 30, 1963. The said Sk. Barkatullah had three wives during his lifetime. By a registered deed of hiba dated January 13, 1966, Sk. Barkutullah transferred a portion of the said premises in favour of his first wife. A similar registered deed of transfer was made by Sk. Barkatullah on January 18, 1966, in favour of his second wife in respect of another portion and subsequently the remaining portion in favour of the third wife on February 15, 1966. During the life time of Sk. Barkatullah this property was never included either in the wealth -tax or in the income -tax return of Sk. Barkatullah.
(3.) ON July 1, 1974, the second wife made an oral gift (oral hiba), of her portion in favour of Md. Tariq, the son of the other wife. However, such oral hiba was confirmed by a registered deed of gift dated September 17, 1974, by Jainab Begam, the second wife in favour of the Md. Tariq. The premises were subsequently leased out to Syndicate Bank by Md. Tariq and other wives. Syndicate Bank was and is still a tenant of the premises in question.;