Honble SINGHAL, J. — The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 29, 1979, in respect of the assessment year 1972- 73 under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that property income of Rs. 1,00,228/- pertaining to 1/2 share of Tiecion House, Bombay is assessable in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 ?" (2). The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the determination of the above question are that the assessee had purchased 1/2 share in the immovable property known as Tiecicon House from one Shri S.N. Desai by an assignment deed dated March 29,1967 which was not registered. The assessee had sold the said 1/2 share to Eklingji Trust under an assignment deed dated September 29, 1970 which was presented before the Sub Registrar for registration on December 24,1970. The deed so presented was registered on May 17,1975. The assessee submitted before the assessing authority that the income from such property could not be assessed in her hands as she was legally divested of her title by the deed dated September 21, 1970 which was presented for registration on December 24,1970, and registered on May 17,1975. The assessing authority rejected the assessees contention and held that the title of immovable property could pass from the date of registration and he accordingly assessed the income of Rs. 1,00,228/- relating to 1/2 share of such property in the assessments of the assessee. (3). On appeal before the AAC it was held that the said income could not be added in the total income of the assessee, and the appeal was allowed. The Income-Tax Officer was directed to ask the appellant to produce the original copy of the sale deed so as to verify the fact of registration from the Sub-Registrar and if the fact of registration is found to be correct then to exclude the income of this property from the total income of the assessee. (4). The Income-Tax Officer was directed to ask the appellant to produce the original copy of the sale deed so as to verify the fact of registration from the Sub-Registrar and if the fact of registration is found to be correct then to exclude the income of this property from the total income of the assessee. (4). The matter was challenged by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that unless there is transfer of property by a registered sale deed the title in respect thereof does not pass and the assessee being the owner of the property, the income has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. (5). The submission of the learned counsel for the assessee is that the sale is complete on the date the sale deed was executed and at any rate on the date it was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar and therefore the assessee ceased to be the owner thereof in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act. It is also submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act Eklingji Trust remained in possession of the property and was owner of the same during the relevant assessment year. It is further submitted that under Section 22-of the Income Tax Act it was Eklingji Trust alone who could exercise its right as owner of the said property, and after the submission of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar the assessee ceased to have any right, title or interest in the said property. The assessee had received full price and the transferee was in possession of the property and was realising the rent from the tenants. (6). The submission of the learned counsel for the department is that the immovable property of more than Rs. 100/- could be transferred by a registered instrument only and since there was no sale as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, there was no transfer of ownership. Since the registration of the property under Section 49 of the Registration Act was complete in 1975 it was only at that point of time that the property was transferred in favour of Eklingji Trust. Since the registration of the property under Section 49 of the Registration Act was complete in 1975 it was only at that point of time that the property was transferred in favour of Eklingji Trust. It is further submitted that in the case of Ram Saran vs. Domini Kuer and others (1), the majority view of the Apex Court with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of sec. 47 of the Registration Act was as under : — "We do not think that the learned Attorney Generals contention is well founded. We will assume that the learned Attorney Generals construction of the instrument of sale that the property was intended to pass under it on the date of the instrument is correct. Section 47 of the Registration Act does not however say when a sale would be deemed to be complete. It only permits a document when registered to operate from a certain date which may be earlier than the date when it was registered. The object of this section is to decide which of two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is to have effect. The Section applies to a documents only after it has been registered. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and therefore nothing to do with completion of a sale when the instrument is one of sale. A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of S.47 the instrument by which it is effected after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date. Therefore, we do not think that the sale in this case can be said in view of S.47 to have been completed on January 31,1946. The view that we have taken of S.47 of the Registration Act seems to have been taken in Tilakdhari Singh Vs. Gour Narain AIR 1921, Pat-150. We believe that the same view was expressed in Naresh chandra Dutta V. Girish Chandra Das ILR 62 Cal 979 (AIR 1936 Cal 17) and Gobardhan Bar V. Gana Dhar Bar ILR (1940)2 Cal 270 (AIR 1941 Cat 78)". The decision in the case of Hiralal Agarwal Vs. Gour Narain AIR 1921, Pat-150. We believe that the same view was expressed in Naresh chandra Dutta V. Girish Chandra Das ILR 62 Cal 979 (AIR 1936 Cal 17) and Gobardhan Bar V. Gana Dhar Bar ILR (1940)2 Cal 270 (AIR 1941 Cat 78)". The decision in the case of Hiralal Agarwal Vs. Rampondarth Singh (2), has also been relied upon where it was observed- "This contention, however cannot be accepted in view of the decision in Ram Saran Lal V. Mst. Domini Kuer 1962 2 SCR 474 ( AIR 1961 SC 1747 ) where this Court rejected an identical contention. Mr.Desai tried to distinguish that case on the ground that it was based on Mohamadan Law but on the effect of S.47 of the Registration Act, the majority decision clearly laid down that the sale there was complete only when registration of the sale deed was completed as contemplated by S. 61 of the Registration Act and therefore the talab-i-movasibat made before the date of completion of registration was premature and a suit based on such a demand of the right of pre-emption was premature and must, therefore, fail." Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala V. CIT (3) and CIT V. Bimen Behari Shaw Shabait (4) and also on the case of CIT V. Ganga Properties Ltd (5) on the basis of which it has been submitted that it is only the legal owner who is to be assessed in respect of the income from the property. (7). Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Hall and Anderson (Private )Ltd. V. CIT (6), K.C.Pal Chowdhary V. CIT (7) and Alamati Venkatarmiah V. CIT (8). (8). We have considered over the matter. Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. (8). We have considered over the matter. Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. From a perusal of Sec.47 of the Registration Act it is evident that it is applicable in respect of a document which is not required to be registered and if it is required to be registered and not registered, then it will be effective from the date of commencement on which it would have commenced to operate i.e. the date of execution and not from the date of its registration. Section 48 provides that all non- testamentary documents duly registered under the Registration Act and relating to any property whether movable or immovable shall take effect against any oral agreement or declaration relating to such property unless where the agreement or declaration has been accompanied or followed by delivery of possession and the same constitutes a valid transfer under any law for the time being in force. In the case of CIT V. Jhanzie Tea Association, where the assessee, a non-resident company, entered into an agreement of sale of a tea estate with effect from January 1,1969 and other three estates with effect from January 1,1970 but the deeds of conveyance in favour of the purchasers were not executed within the relevant previous year, the Calcutta High Court held that there was diversion of income by over-riding title and the income from tea business from January 1,1969 in the case of one tea estate and from January 1,1970 in respect of the other three tea estates was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. While interpreting the provisions of S"ction 9 of the Income-Tax Act, 1922 the Apex Court has held in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Khuntiala(supra) that the owner must be specific who can exercise the rights on his own behalf. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act has contemplated that for a valid transfer of the ownership of immovable property having the value of more than Rs. 100/- the same should be by a registered document. (9). Section 22 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 reads as under: — "22. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act has contemplated that for a valid transfer of the ownership of immovable property having the value of more than Rs. 100/- the same should be by a registered document. (9). Section 22 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 reads as under: — "22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which any chargeable to income-tax shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head income from house property". (10). The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V. Modern Flats Pvt. Ltd (9), held that since the assessee had transferred all its rights, title and interest nothing was left with him and hence the assessee was not liable to tax. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Addl. C.I.T. V. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. (10), has held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of the assets even if conveyance deed has not been executed and registered in his favour. In the case of Smt. Kala Rani V. CIT Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that it is not necessary that the assessee must be the owner of the property by virtue of sale deed in his favour and he can be assessed in respect of the income derived from the property. This Court in the case of Smt. Savita Mohan Nagpal V. CIT (11), applied the principles of over-riding title even in respect of assessment of income under the head income from house property". Since the buyer was already assessed to income-tax in respect of rental income it was held that there is no question of assessing the assessee firm again. The Madras High Court in the case of P Joseph Swaminathan V. CIT (12), has observed that the basis of liability is ownership of the property.The Act does not pin-down the assessing authorities to the registered owner of the house property as decisive of the question of assessability. The Madras High Court in the case of P Joseph Swaminathan V. CIT (12), has observed that the basis of liability is ownership of the property.The Act does not pin-down the assessing authorities to the registered owner of the house property as decisive of the question of assessability. In whosoevers name the house property may stand or get registered,it would yet be within the province of the ITO to find out who the real owner of the property so as to fix the liability for income-tax on that owner in respect of that properly. In the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan V. CWT (13) the Apex Court interpreted the Wealth Tax Act and held that the property in respect of which registered sale deed has not been executed,though consideration for sale has been received and possession has been transferred to the purchaser,legally does not belong to the vendee and it continues with the vendor. (10). Section 22 of the Income-tax Act has created a charge on the income in respect of annual value of the property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner,other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax under the head income from house property. The question therefore arises as to whether the words of which the assessee is the owner can be applicable only to a registered owner or to such of the persons in whose favour registered sale deed has not been executed but a sale agreement has been executed,possession of the property has been given and consideration for sale has been paid. The question therefore arises as to whether the words of which the assessee is the owner can be applicable only to a registered owner or to such of the persons in whose favour registered sale deed has not been executed but a sale agreement has been executed,possession of the property has been given and consideration for sale has been paid. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act has contemplated that when any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty and the transferee has in part performance of the contract taken possession of the property or any part thereof or the transferee being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract though required-to be registered, has not been registered, or where there is an instrument of transfer that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being inforce, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract. The proviso to the aforesaid section contemplates that nothing in that section shall affect the right of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. If the view is taken that without there being conveyance, transferor continues to be the owner, still a question arises that the income has not been received by the owner and therefore whether the assessment of the transfered could be made by considering that there was diversion of income or the transferor has casead to have any right in respect of the income-received?. This Section debars the transferor from enforcing his right to the property. This Section debars the transferor from enforcing his right to the property. In the case of Handa Ammal V Avadiappa Pathar & Other (14), it was held by the Apex Court that the document after its registration relates back to the date of execution of sale deed. Though under the Income-tax law the benefit of ownership is unknown,but still if the income is assessed in the hands of transferor who has not received the income from the property whether such a transferor can be made liable to make the payment of tax. Various decisions given by different High Courts have taken different views. The view of Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi and Allahabad High Courts as mentioned above is on one hand,whereas the view of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT V. Nawab Mir Barakat Khan (15) and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Ramkumar Mills P. Ltd.V.CIT is different so far as the view taken by Apex Court in the case of Osman Ali Khans(supra) is concerned that was in the context of Wealth tax where the language of the section was different one. Section 53-A debars a transferor to exercise the rights of an owner after he has received full considreration and handed over possession under the contract. The transferor in a case where he has executed the document and received consideration and even handed over the possession of the property, cannot exercise anyright of an owner. This court in the case of Rajputana Hotels Pvt.Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan and others (16), while interpreting the provisions of Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act, 1964 has held that the person who is entitled to receive the rent is assessable in respect of a property even if it is not registered in his name. (11). The matter can be considered from another angle. Under the Income-tax Act the assessing authority has power to assess the income in the hands of real owner. If Apurchases the property in the name of X,simply because the property is registered in the name of X,A cannot escape his liability. Secondly,there can be a partnership where the partners have contributed the property and the property has become the partnership property,then no registration is required, the income in such a case has to be assessed in the hands of partnership firm and not the individuals who have contributed the property. Secondly,there can be a partnership where the partners have contributed the property and the property has become the partnership property,then no registration is required, the income in such a case has to be assessed in the hands of partnership firm and not the individuals who have contributed the property. Thirdly, the transferee who has received the income has already been assessed in respect of income derived from such property as the income from the property whether section 22 can again be involked against transferor in respect of such income, fourthly, in respect of a co-operative society the members thereof are given the property on the basis of allotment letters which may or may not be registered. The members thereafter transfer the property from one hand to another and if it is considered that it is only registered owner or the society, then the person who has enjoyed the income would escape liability of tax. Fifthly, if it is considered that the registered owner alone is liable to pay tax while the income is received by the transferee, the transferee would enjoy the income but the tax will be levied from the registered owner who may or may not be in a position to make the payment of tax. Sixthly, there could be diversion of income by the over-riding title as was considered in the case of Savita Mohan (supra), Seventhly, if the property is in the name of trust and the beneficiary is entitled to the specific share of income, whether the other provisions of the Act can be said to be inoperative, and eightly, there may be some similar other instances. (12). In the present case the sale deed was executed on September 21,1970 and was presented before the Sub-Registrar on December 24,1970. Because of some dispute the sale deed was registered on may 17, 1975. Nothing was required to be done by the transferor. The sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registeror on December 24, 1970. Therefore, the income which was received by the transferee was liable to be taxed only in the hands of transferee. We may also observe that in the case of Sirehmal Nawalkha V. CIT (17), this court has held the gift in respect of a property having the value of more than Rs. 100/- is valid even if it is not registered. We may also observe that in the case of Sirehmal Nawalkha V. CIT (17), this court has held the gift in respect of a property having the value of more than Rs. 100/- is valid even if it is not registered. The decision in the case of Kuthiala(supra)was in respect of evaque property and even if the observations made in that case are taken into consideration it is evident that the transferor ceased to have any right, title or interest in the property after the execution and presentation of the document before the Sub Registrar and could not have exercised any right of ownership in any manner. In these circunstances, we are of the opinion that since the assessee has already executed the sale deed and has presented the same for registration before the Sub Registrar on December 24,1970, and the income of the said property was received by the transferee, the assessee can not be considered to be the owner thereof. (13). Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that property income of Rs. 1,00,228/- pertaining to 1/2 share of Tiecicon House Bombay is assessable in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73 . No order as to costs.