Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) At the instance of the assessee, the following questions of taw have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the leases dated March 11, 1968 in favour of Peekay Management were facade and not genuine is vitiated by reason of its failure to consider the relevant and material fact on record and is based upon incorrect material and as such is perverse ?
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in determining the rea! annual value under Section 22 read with Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the rent actually received by the assessee should have been taken into account and not the alleged rent which the properties might have fetched ?
(3.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that Peekay Management is not the 'owner' and that the assessee herein alone is the 'owner' for the purpose of Sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is correct in law ?" Following the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Protima Roy v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 536, the first question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The second question is answered by saying that in determining the real annual value under Section 22 read with Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, the rent receivable should be taken into consideration and not the amount actually supposed to have been received by the assessee. This question is also answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of the answers to the first and sectiond quesitons aforesaid, the third question also must be answered in the affidavit and in favour of the Revenue. There will bo no order as to costs.;