IN RE: BABULAL RAJGARHIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule must be discharged with costs. In the letter which the Income-tax Commissioner has sent to this Court under the Rules of this Court showing cause against the rule which we ordered to issue, the first question submitted is: Whether a lease deed stipulating an annual rental of a house property is not conclusive evidence to prove the bona fide annual value as stipulated by Section 9 (1), Income tax Act.

(2.) The Commissioner of Income-tax submits that the question is altogether one of fact and that a lease deed stipulating an annual rental value, though one piece of evidence is not conclusive evidence of the bona fide annual value of the property and that in determining that value of the property all the circumstances of the case must be considered. Mr. Banerji who appears in support of this rule admits that that contention is right. The second question submitted is: Whether or not there was a succession within the meaning of Section 26 (2) of the Act to the jute mill of asseseees which was Bold without transferring the account book debts and outstandings, etc

(3.) The Income-tax Commissioner has set out the facts relating to the transfer of building, machinery, stocks and stores and the land on which the mill was built. He submits that this again is a question of fact. I think that it is a question of fact, and Mr. Banerji does not argue to the contrary. So that question goes. The third question with regard to which the Commissioner of Income-tax is asked to show cause why he should not state a case is as follows: Whether assuming that there was a succession under Section 26 (2) of the Act, the assessee was entitled to the deduction for the losses incurred by him in the business.