D. V. JUNNARKAR, A. M.: assessee was owner of building with some open land appurtenant thereto. There are already some tenants in building. He entered into agreement for sale of entire property for amount of Rs. 2 lacs in June, 1971 to Shri Shantikumar Dharamshi and Smt. Shobhna Shantikumar. final conveyance of property in favour of Shantikumar has not been made. Th possession was, however, handed over to Shantikumar, who had made some additions and alterations in property. assessee had ceased to recover rents from tenants. assessee stated that as he had ceased to recover that rents from tenants and property was already subject matter of agreement for sale, income from property should not be included in total income of assessee. In support of this argument, assessee relied on Supreme Court decision in case of R. B. Jodhi Mal Kuthalia vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). ITO, however, relied on another decision of Supreme Court in case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC) where in it was held that title to land and building could no pass till final conveyance was executed and registered in favour of purchaser. He, therefore proceeds to include income from property in hands of assessee. assessee appealed before AAC. Having heard agruments on behalf of assessee, AAC followed Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Sultan Bros. P. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 249 (Bom) and rejected assessee s appeal. assessee has, therefore, filed present appeals before Tribunal. On behalf of assessee, reliance is placed on Supreme Court decision in case of Jodha Mal Kuthali (supra) Further reference is also made to Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in case of Smt. Kala Rani vs. CIT 91981) 23 CTR (P&H) 17: (1981) 130 ITR 3211 (P&H) and Patna High Court decision in case of Addl. CIT vs. Saharaj Properties and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 34 CTR (Pat) 382: (1983) 144 ITR 357 (Patr). On behalf of Revenue, reliance is placed on Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Union Land & Building Society (P) Ltd. (1973) 83 ITR 795 (Bom), in case of CIT vs. Zorastrain Building Society (P) Ltd. (1976) 102 ITR 499 (Bom), and finally in case of CIT vs. Sultan Bros. P. Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 249 (Bom). Having carefully considered facts and circumstances of case, we find that facts lie within narrow compass. assessee agreed to sell his immovable property to Shantikumar Dharamshi and Shobhna Shanti kumar by agreement dt. June, 1971. final conveyance was, however, not made or registered. question is whether assessee is ceases to be owner of property. We find under similar circumstances, Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Sultan Bros. P. Ltd. (supra) has held that assessee continued to be owner. While doing so, they have followed therein own decision in case of CIT vs. Zorastrain Building Society Ltd. (supra). Further, they have also considered Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in case of Smt. Kala Rani (supra) and Supreme Court decision case of Jodha Mal Kuthalia (supra) relied upon by assessee. We find that earlier Bombay High Court decision in case of Union Lnd & Building Society Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is also to same effect, In case of Sultan Bros. P. Ltd. (supra), they have held that under agreement to sell house property where transferor receives earnest money and hands over possession of property to purchaser with all other rights incidental thereto and due attornments are made by informing tenants to pay rent to purchasers and balance sale consideration is received by vendor later, in absence of registered sale deed where value of property exceeds Rs. 100 transferee cannot be regarded as owner of property. vendor continued to be owner of property and was liable to be assessed on income from house property under s. 22 of IT Act. In view of this clear pronouncement of law on subject as late as on 11th Feb. 1982 by ld. judges of Bombay High Court, we are unable to see how AAC could have arrived at different conclusion. He was fully justified in following Bombay High Court decision on this subject. There is no substance in appeals filed on behalf of assessee. In result, appeals filed by assessee filed and are accordingly dismissed. dismissed. *** DUNGERSHI HARIDAS v. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TWELFTH)