Om Prakash, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a common statement of the case in two R. As. relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 referring the following questions for each year for the opinion of this court :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that there was no ground for invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the observation/finding of the Tribunal that 'the company was engaged in the business of running the lodge and was incurring a lot of expenditure', etc., does not apply to the shop building which alone fetches Rs. 98,950 on rent (as against Rs, 1,20,000) paid for the entire building complex should not the Tribunal have restored the estimated income from the shop building ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the company was 'only collecting the rent and doing nothing' with regard to the shop building should not the Tribunal have held that the rent received by the company is the fair rent from the shop building as far as the assessee is concerned ?"
2. Learned standing counsel has pressed only question No. 1 before us and not the other questions. The assessee let out certain immovable property to Rajadhani Hotels and Tourist Enterprises (P.) Ltd.--a company of which the assessees are the shareholders. The said property was let out at the rate of Rs. 72,000 per annum. The Assessing Officer took the view that the said property is under the occupation of as many as five tenants on behalf of the company which is charging rent from the said tenants which comes to Rs. 1.60 per square feet. As against this, the rent charged by the assessees from the company is much less. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the annual value of the property in question would be determined under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which states that the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the annual value of the property.
3. The dispute was ultimately carried in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue which held that the rental value of Rs. 72,000 per annum could not be questioned by the Assessing Officer, inasmuch as the genuineness of the lease agreement executed between the assessees and the company was not assailed. This is how the Appellate Tribunal held that there was no reason for invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and estimating the rent.
4. We heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the assessees himself submitted before us that the annual value of the property would be determined under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. This is the sole point canvassed by the senior standing counsel before us. In view of the above mentioned submission of learned counsel for the assessees, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees.
5. So far as questions Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are returned unanswered as the controversy involving in them is not pressed by learned standing counsel.
6. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Appellate Tribunal to enable it to redetermine the annual value of the property in question in view of Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.