Judgment 1. Taxation Cases Nos. 87, 88 and 89 of 1971 relate to the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, the previous years being calendar years 1958, 1959 and 1960. In these years, the assessee, M/s. Ganpati Properties (P.) Ltd. through its liquidator, Ganga Prasad Budhia, felt aggrieved by the order of assessment under Sec.147 of the IT. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Taxation Case No. 43 of 1970 relates to the assessment year 1962-63, corresponding to the previous calendar year 1961. In that case, a regular assessment has been made culminating into an appeal before the Tribunal which has since been decided. In all the four cases, the points involved are common, and hence this common judgment. 2. We shall, however, deal with Taxation Cases Nos. 87, 88 and 89 of 1971 first, since they relate to a point of time earlier than the assessment year with which the Taxation Case No. 43 of 1970 is concerned. It may be worthwhile to mention here that in Taxation Cases Nos. 87 to 89 of 1971, a statement of case under Sec.256(1) of the Act has been submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, by a common order. In Taxation Case No. 43 of 1970, however, a statement of case has been submitted under Sec.256(2) of the Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Calcutta, pursuant to a direction of this court dated March 29, 1972. In Taxation Cases Nos. 87 to 89 of 1971, two questions have been referred to be answered : " (1) Whether the Income-tax Officer validly assumed powers conferred under Sec.147 to reopen the assessment for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62? (2) Whether the bona fide letting value of the properties Nos. 548A and 571A was rightly taken at Rs. 28,728 in the hands of the assessee/ lessor being the rent realisable by the lessee from the tenants ? " 3. The facts of the case, as borne out by the statement of the case, are these : The assessee is a private limited company and the cases refer to the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 as already indicated. Its main source of income is from house property and it has also agricultural income. The original assessments were reopened under Sec.147 of the Act. Its main source of income is from house property and it has also agricultural income. The original assessments were reopened under Sec.147 of the Act. The assessee-company owned the properties and it had leased two of them to two lessees under deeds of lease renewed from time to time, the last being of the year 1948. The assessee owns the two properties mentioned above which are described as houses Nos. (1) 542A and 571A, (2) 571 and 572 (wrongly printed in the,-statement of the case as Houses Nos. 548A and 571 A) along with other properties. The aforesaid two house properties were given on lease to Smt. Anchi Devi and Smt. Subati Devi Budhia, respectively. The assessee produced copies of the lease deed before the assessing authority. The original assessment for the year 1959-60 was made at Rs. 30,770 as income from house property including the income of Rs. 20,000 from the aforesaid two properties as was estimated in the past. The original assessment order has been marked annex. A to the statement of the cases. The assessment of Smt. Subati Devi Budhia aforementioned, one of the lessees, was also made by the same ITO, namely, the ITO, Ward-A, Ranchi-Palamau Circle. A copy of that order has been marked annex. B. In course of the assessment year 1962-63, a detailed list of tenants and rents paid by them to the lessees was obtained. On scrutiny of this list, the ITO found that the actual total rent realised by the lessees was Rs. 28,728 (Rs. 15,060, being the actual rent received in respect of property No. (1) and Rs. 13,668 being the actual rent received by the lessees in respect of property No. (2) as described above. As the total rental received by the lessees was found to be Rs. 28,728 as against Rs. 20,000 as the receipt of the assessee-lessor, the ITO initiated proceedings under Sec.147(a) of the Act (although the Tribunal has stated in the statement of the case that the initiation of the proceedings was under Section 147(a) of the Act, it is not clear from all the materials and records as to whether the proceedings were initiated under Sec.147(a) or (b) or both. In all the orders, original and appellate, there is only a mention of Sec.147 in general. The question is, however, immaterial, because the proceedings have admittedly been initiated within four years). 4. In all the orders, original and appellate, there is only a mention of Sec.147 in general. The question is, however, immaterial, because the proceedings have admittedly been initiated within four years). 4. From the difference of Rs. 8,728 (Rs. 28,728 minus Rs. 20,000), the ITO allowed 1/6th for repairs. He included the balance sum of Rs. 6,273 in the reassessment made under Sec.147 for the assessment year 1959-60. The same was followed in the subsequent two assessment years, i.e., 1960-61 and 1961-62. The assessee appealed to the AAC who upheld the assessment. The appellate orders of the AAC have been made annexs. C and D. On further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the ITO should determine the annual letting value at the same figure as the rent realised by the two lessees and after allowing for all statutory deductions, assess the assessee accordingly. In a nutshell the Tribunal held that the assessee should be reassessed at a figure which was the rent realised by the two lessees of the assessee and not what the assessee was under law entitled to recover. The assessee had made two claims before the Tribunal: (1) that Sec.147 was not rightly invoked, because all the facts were known to the ITO. The Tribunal held that the full facts were not known to the ITO. In particular, the ITO was not aware of the higher value at which the properties were let out by the lessees. Further, even if there was a Complete disclosure in the case of the lessees, such a disclosure in the lessees case was not enough to render the assessee immune from" the provisions of reassessment under Sec.147 ; (2) that the ITO was not right in including in the hands of the assessee/lessor the rental realised and he was bound to adopt the lease rent determined in the lease deeds. The Tribunal held that the expression "bona fide letting value" in Section 9 of the 1922 Act corresponding to Sec.23 of the Act indicated that it was the " bona fide letting value " which it was likely to fetch in the open market, that should be the proper subject of these assessments. The Tribunal held that the expression "bona fide letting value" in Section 9 of the 1922 Act corresponding to Sec.23 of the Act indicated that it was the " bona fide letting value " which it was likely to fetch in the open market, that should be the proper subject of these assessments. The Tribunal did not accept the assessees contention that the bona fide letting value in the hands of the lessor/assessee should be taken to be the rents specified in the deeds of leases. 5. Another argument put forth on behalf of the assessee was that it would be a case of double assessment, namely, the assessment in the hands of the lessees and also in the hands of the lessor. The Tribunal held that if the lessees were also assessed on the receipt basis, then that by itself was not sufficient to preclude the assessment of the bona fide letting value in the hands of the lessor. 6. Another argument advanced on behalf of the assessee was that under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, which was then in force in the State, the assessee could not enhance the stipulated rent which was not recoverable under the Act and that, therefore, the bona fide annual letting value could not be more than the stipulated rent under the indentures of lease. None of these arguments found favour with the Tribunal. On these facts, the two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court. 7. The answer to the first question would follow the answer to the second as a necessary corollary because whether the ITO validly assumed powers conferred under Sec.147 to reopen the assessment would depend upon the answer to the question whether the bona fide letting value of the properties was rightly estimated at Rs. 22,728 in the hands of the assessee/Iessor, being the rent realisable by the lessee from the tenants. 8. It is not necessary for answering the second question to go into any great detail. It is pertinent to take note of what the Tribunal has said in its appellate order with regard to the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. It has been said that the question as to whether the assessee was competent under the Bihar Buildings Control Act to enhance the amount, was irrelevant. It is pertinent to take note of what the Tribunal has said in its appellate order with regard to the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. It has been said that the question as to whether the assessee was competent under the Bihar Buildings Control Act to enhance the amount, was irrelevant. In other words, it was not relevant at all inasmuch as all that had to be seen was as to what could be the bona fide annual letting value of the properties within the meaning of Section 9 of the 1922 Act or Sec.23 of the Act. It is clear that the Tribunal has misdirected itself on a question of law. It is now well settled that where the rent control laws are in force, the annual value of the building, according to the definition given in Sec.23(1) of the Act (as it stood prior to its amendment in 1975), should be the standard rent, (fair rent for Bihar) determinable under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and not the actual rent received by the landlord from the tenant. The appellate order of the Tribunal suffers from two infirmities. Firstly, it has wrongly treated as irrelevant the provisions of the Bihar Rent Control Act, 1947, for the purpose of finding out the amount of fair rent determinable under the provisions of that Act which in its sweep must take note of two factors--(1) as to what was the fair rent determinable under the Act ? and (2) as to whether in any event, the assessee/Iessor could, under the provisions of the Act, realise anything more than what was stipulated in their deeds ? We must, however, make it clear that these factors cannot and could not have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in the blanket form. The assessee/lessors right to raise these contentions must be hedged in. by a limitation. That limitation is that the assesses having acquiesced in the Tribunals previous order hold-ing that Rs. 20,000 should be the deemed the annual letting value of the properties in question, the assessee cannot be permitted to resile from that position and claim any exemption in respect of any part of that Rs. 20,000. by a limitation. That limitation is that the assesses having acquiesced in the Tribunals previous order hold-ing that Rs. 20,000 should be the deemed the annual letting value of the properties in question, the assessee cannot be permitted to resile from that position and claim any exemption in respect of any part of that Rs. 20,000. All the same, for the purpose of finding out as to whether there was any reason to reopen the assessment and assess the assessee/lessor at a figure higher than Rs. 20,000, the aforementioned, factors have to be taken into consideration. A reference in this connection may be made to two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish V/s. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 and Amolak Ram Khosla V/s. CIT [198I] 131 ITR 589, and a Bench decision of this court to which one of us (namely, S.K. Jha J.) was a party in the case of Kashi Prasad Kataruka V/s. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 810. 9. Only after taking these two factors into consideration, if the Tribu nal finds that the value of the two house properties in question could be determined at a figure higher than Rs. 20,000, would the question of re assessment arise under Sec.147 of the Act, and only in such an eventuality it will have to be seen as to whether any of the clauses, Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.147, can be said to have been attracted. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant cases, therefore, we hold that the Tribunal has misdirected itself on the question of law as to the mode of estimating the bona fide annual letting value of the properties in question for the purpose of Section 9 of the 1922 Act and Sec.23 of the Act. The Tribunal should reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with the principles laid down as aforementioned and pass appropriate orders thereafter. 11. The two questions referred to this court for opinion are accordingly, answered and sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. The answers that we have given in the Taxation Cases Nos. 11. The two questions referred to this court for opinion are accordingly, answered and sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. The answers that we have given in the Taxation Cases Nos. 87 to 89 of 1971, also answer the question which has been referred in Taxation Case No. 43 of 1971, as to whether the bona fide letting value of the properties, Nos. 548A and 571 A, was rightly taken at Rs. 28,728 in the hands of the assessee/lessor, being the rent realisable by the lessees from the tenants. 12. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia, learned senior standing counsel for the Department, urged that in any event, the money really received by way of rent by the assessee/lessor in excess of the fair rent determinable under the Rent Control Act may fall under the heading "Income from other sources" if owned under Section 56 of the Act read with Sec.14 in Chapter IV, Caption C. This question was never previously raised and, therefore, we are not applying our mind to it. If it is raised before the Tribunal, it shall decide the point in accordance with law.