JUDGMENT : J.K. Ranka J. The instant income tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the appellant-Revenue assailing the order dated December 31, 2014, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. It relates to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the respondent-assessee was drawing income from salary and income from house property and was also director of private limited companies which were, inter alia, engaged in the business of real estate i.e. development of township, etc. 3. An information was gathered by the Assessing Officer (for short "AO") that the assessee had sold immovable property, situated at village Basda Alias, Khasra No. 6/1 and 6/4, Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi, District. Jaipur measuring 9 Bigha 4 Biswa to M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee is a director. It came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the said land was purchased by the assessee on March 24, 2007 for Rs. 15,00,000 and sold on September 18, 2008 for a consideration of Rs. 1,39,60,080 and thus the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the resultant gain being a short-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 1,23,47,880 was liable to be taxed as short-term capital gains. The assessee, inter alia, contended that the land in question was an agricultural land, the same was purchased for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the company in which the assessee being a director and the said company was engaged in the business of real estate and the company purchased land for his own use and in the name of its director as agent for convenience and the land purchased by the company in its agent's name (director's name) has been accounted for in the books of the company and taken as stock in trade of the company and copy of stock statement as on March 31, 2008 forming part of the company's balance-sheet as on March 31, 2008 was attached with the reply. It was also contended that the private limited company sold the aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs. It was also contended that the private limited company sold the aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs. 1,39,60,080 and that such land is duly accounted for in the books of the company and the company has duly paid the business profits for the assessment year 2009-10 and it was contended that only for convenience the land was purchased in the name of the director otherwise it has been accounted for by the company. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and inter alia brought to tax the resultant difference of Rs. 1,23,47,880 as a short-term capital gains. 4. The said assessment was assailed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, "CIT(A)") reiterating the same facts and bringing to notice of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the fact that the entire transaction was duly recorded in the books of account of the limited company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted contention of the assessee and deleted the addition holding that the land has been consistently shown in the books of the company M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee was a director and even in the case of company, no finding was given that this land did not belong to the company. 5. A further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the same also resulted in dismissal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that sale deed was in the name of the assessee and even in the sale deed, there was no mention as to the assessee having purchased for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and no proper information was placed on record by the assessee before the authorities concerned. He further contended that no material was brought on record as to how it related to or was owned by M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. He further contended that findings by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal are perverse and substantial question of law emerge out of the order of the Tribunal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order and the material on record. 8. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order and the material on record. 8. Both the appellate authorities have come to a definite finding of fact on the material which was placed on the assessment record as well as before the appellate authority that the assessee is a director of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and the company is engaged in the real estate business. In the course of business, the company had purchased the land in the name of the director but the same is duly accounted for in the books of the company. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Assessing Officer it was brought to the notice that not only this purchase was reflected in the books of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. but the assessee also purchased other properties in the capacity of director on behalf of M/s. ARG Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. ARG Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and same transactions were duly reflected in the respective limited companies, however the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee with reference to the aforesaid two companies namely; ARG Developers Pvt. Ltd. and ARG Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. but took a u-tum in so far as the company is concerned. It is also apparent on perusal of the orders that the sale deed was executed by the assessee in respect of Khasra No. 6/1 and 6/4 at village Basda Alias for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and the said amount was shown as stock in the books of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. as on March 31, 2008 and not only this, the limited company had also made a surrender in the survey conducted on February 28, 2008 and the sale proceeds of the said land at Rs. 1,51,80,000 is duly recorded in the books of account of the company and business profit has been offered to tax in the case of the company. On perusal of the material available on record, it is also noticed that the limited company, namely, M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. sold this land to another limited company namely; Grass Field Fire Capital Developers Private Limited on August 5, 2008 for Rs. On perusal of the material available on record, it is also noticed that the limited company, namely, M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. sold this land to another limited company namely; Grass Field Fire Capital Developers Private Limited on August 5, 2008 for Rs. 1,51,80,000 where also the assessee executed sale deed as an agent for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and even the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have found that the sale amount is duly recorded in the books of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. It is also a fact that even a certificate of the company was placed on record confirming ownership of the land before the Assessing Officer himself. 9. After analysing the material on record, the appellate authorities found that a survey operation was carried at the business premises of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. from February 26, 2008 to February 28, 2008 where certain incriminating documents were found regarding payments made that were not accounted for in the regular books of account of the company and such land transactions were inventorised along with the details of particulars of the land, seller's name, registration number, purchase value, market value and final value and on the basis of this inventory the company surrendered the amount not declared in the books of account. Even this very transaction of land which was made basis of the addition on account of short-term capital gains in the hands of the appellant is reflected in the said inventory and the land was found recorded in closing stock of the said company as on March 31, 2008. The appellate authorities also found as a finding of fact that M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. sold this land to M/s. Grass Field Fire Capital Developers Pvt. Ltd. on August 5, 2008 for Rs. 1,51,80,000 and offered profit for taxation as per the return filed by the limited company. 10. The learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgments of the apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) and CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) where the apex court has held that the real beneficial owner is to be considered and not the legal owners. 11. 11. The apex court in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) had an occasion to consider "owner" in the context of income-tax provisions and observed as under (page 653 of 226 ITR) : "We are conscious of the settled position that under the common law, 'owner' means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income-tax Act, namely, 'to tax the income', we are of the view, 'owner' is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right." 12. The apex court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) had an occasion to consider claim of depreciation and the term "own", "ownership" and "owned" and after analysing various judgments observed as under (page 781 of 239 ITR) : "It is well-settled that there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously and in the same sense of the term. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not subserve the legislative intent. To take the case at hand it is the appellant-assessee who having paid part of the price, has been placed in possession of the houses as an owner and is using the buildings for the purpose of its business in its own right. Still the assessee has been denied the benefit of section 32. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature. On the other hand, the Housing Board would be denied the benefit of section 32 because in spite of its being the legal owner it was not using the building for its business or profession. We do not think such a benefit-to-none situation could have been intended by the Legislature. The finding of fact arrived at in the case at hand is that though a document of title was not executed by the Housing Board in favour of the assessee, but the houses were allotted to the assessee by the Housing Board, part payment received and possession delivered so as to confer dominion over the property on the assessee where after the assessee had in its own right allotted the quarters to the staff and they were being actually used by the staff of the assessee. It is common knowledge, under the various schemes floated by bodies like housing boards, houses are constructed on a large scale and allotted on part payment to those who have booked. Possession is also delivered to the allottee so as to enable enjoyment of the property. Execution of documents transferring title necessarily follows if the schedule of payment is observed by the allottee. If only the allottee may default the property may revert back to the Board. That is a matter only between the Housing Board and the allottee. No third person intervenes. The part payments made by allottee are with the intention of acquiring title. The delivery of possession by the Housing Board to the allottee is also a step towards conferring ownership. Documentation is delayed only with the idea of compelling the allottee to observe the schedule of payment." 13. The above two judgments also support the contention of the assessee that there can be no two owners and in the instant case, from the material placed by the assessee and considered by both the appellate authorities, it clearly proves that the assessee being a director executed title deeds for and on behalf of M/s. Grass Field Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and the beneficial owner for all practical purposes was the limited company which had even paid due taxes later on at the rime when the property was sold. 14. 14. In view of what we have noticed herein before, the finding by the learned Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact based on the material on record after appreciation of evidence and in our view, no question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and we find no perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference of this court. 15. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.