JUDGMENT

S.RANGANATHAN, J.

(1) THESE four matters arise out of income tax assessments of the same assessee and involve the same questions. We grant leave in the special leave petition after condoning the delay of 141 days in the circumstances set out in the application for condonation of delay and proceed to dispose of all the four appeals by this common judgment.

(2) THE assessee-appellant in all these cases is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) known as M/s Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain carrying on business at Ferozabad. The HUF consisted of the karta, Chhadami Lal Jain, and his son Bimal Kumar Jain. civil no., 1426 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1962-63, civil nos. 1427 and 1428 relate to assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 and the other remaining Civilrelates to the assessment year 1973-74.

(3) THE facts relevant for the assessment year 1962-63 may now be set out:

FOR the assessment year in question (the previous year for which ended on 12/07/1961, the assessee HUF derived income from property as well as hire, rent and commission from Jain Glass Works (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company). On 3/05/1960, the assessee family had granted a perpetual lease of certain buildings, furnaces and lands owned by it to the company. It appears that a firm known as Jain Glass Works (P) Ltd. had taken on lease the above assets of the HUF at an annual rent of Rs. 62,000.00 for running its business in the manufacture of glassware. The lease deed recited that the company which had taken over the running business of the firm was to continue to have its factory for manufacture of glassware on the land belonging to the joint family and continue to use and enjoy all the facilities for the manufacture of glassware on the bhatties belonging to the family. In consideration of the use of all the above premises, the company was to pay the HUF an annual rent of Rs. 21,000.00 for the period during which the company continued to have its factory in the premises of the lessor and also to pay the HUF a commission at one per cent of the total turnover of the company for financial year. Under clause 3 of the lease deed, the company was to pay the annual rent of Rs. 21,000.00 in the following manner:

(A) Rs. 10,000.00 to Shri Chhadami Lal Jain Trust Degree College, Ferozabad.

(B) Rs. 11,000.00 direct to the lessor M/s Moti Lal Chhadami Lal, HUF.

(4) ON 5/05/1962, another agreement was entered into between four parties: the two male members of the assessee HUF, the company, the Chhadami Lal Jain Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) and the Chhadami Lal Jain Degree College (hereinafter referred to as the College) which is an educational institution run by the Trust. This document referred to the earlier lease agreement between the family and the company and its terms. The agreement recorded, inter alia, that out of the total rent of Rs. 21,000.00 payable by the company, a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 would be paid to the college and the balance to the HUF in four equal quarterly instalments. Clause 7 of the deed reads as follows:

"THAT in the event of the second party failing to pay the rent every quarter in accordance with the abovementioned conditions or violates the terms of this agreement, then, in the first place, the fourh party shall have full rights to recover Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand rupees) per year as rent by recourse to the court in what soever manner it deems fit and shall have first charge on the full property mentioned below. Subsequently, the first party shall recover the balance of Rs. 11,000.00 per year rent along with the interest costs and expenses from the second party and such recovery will not be objected to by the second party or its successors."

(5) FOR the assessment year 1962-63 the assessee family returned Rs. 11,000.00 as lease rent received from the company. It was claimed that the balance of Rs. 10,000.00 was the income of the trust and hence not par