These three appeals by Revenue relating to asst. yr. 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83, arising out of three identical sets of orders of AAC are being disposed of by common order. These appeals were fixed for hearing for 10th July 1986 but none appeared on behalf of assessee-respondent. These appeals are, therefore, decided on merits after hearing ld. departmental representative. common ground is that AAC has erred in deleting additions of Rs. 19,027, Rs. 4,878 and Rs. 15,810 for asst. yr. 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively made by ITO on account of profits earned on instalments received for sale of plot. It has, therefore, been, prayed that orders of AAC be set aside and those of ITO restored. Before considering issues involved, it would be worthwhile to state in brief facts, of case. During three accounting periods relevant to assessment years under appeal, assessee was engaged in business of developing housing colonies. activities of assessee were related to purchase of land and its sale to persons who wanted to construct houses on those plots. By end of accounting period relevant to asst. yr. 1978-79 assessee was said to have acquired land measuring nearly 78231 sq. yards which is 35 per cent (wrongly mentioned as 30 per cent ) of total area had been registered in favour of assessee whereas remaining 65 per cent measuring 51264 sq. yards had not been registered in favour of assessee. ITO observed that assessee had developed two colonies in Ludiana known as New Kundanpuri and New Pratap Nagar. Further more, some plots out of registered and unregistered lands which had been acquired by appellant had been agreed to be sold under some deed of agreement and some instalments had been received towards sale of such plots. ITO was of opinion that money received by assessee in respect of those plots which stood registered in its name was taxable, no matter final sale deed was yet to be executed in favour of buyers of these plots. assessee objected to ITO s above proposal and stated that no profits could be brought to tax until sale deed had been executed. In this connection, reliance was placed on judgment of Gujarat High Court in case CIT vs. Asha Land Corporation (1981) 25 CTR (Guj) 294: (1982) 133 ITR 55 (Guj). ITO, on other hand, relied upon judgments in Estate Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 580 (Bom) and Addl. CIT vs. Sahay Properties & Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1983) 34 CTR (Pat) 382: (1983) 144 ITR 357 (Pat) Holding thus ITO brought amount of Rs. 19,027 to tax which is equivalent to 30 per cent of total investment by appellant during accounting period relevant to asst. yr. 1978-79. For asst. yr. 1981-82 and 1982-83, ITO brought to tax such amounts at Rs. 4,878 and Rs. 15,810 respectively. These incomes were added to returned income of assessee. These additions were challenged in appeals before AAC. It was urged before him that no income was includible in income of assessee in ratio of Gujarat High Court judgement in case of CIT vs. Asha Land Corporation (1981) 25 CTR (Guj) 294: (1982) 133 ITR 55 (Guj) as sale deed had not been executed and registered. Another judgment relied upon was of Bombay High Court reported in CIT vs. Zoroastrians Building Society Ltd. (1976) 102 ITR 499 (Bom). It was also stated that judgment of Bombay High Court relied upon by ITO was clearly distinguishable because there was no restriction or any Act like Land Ceiling Act or Regulation of Colonies Act in Bombay Case whereas in case of appellant situation was clearly different because there was in force Land Ceiling Act in Punjab from 1976 onwards. above submissions found favour with AAC. He deleted additions made by ITO for all three years under appeal. ld. departmental representative has contended that issue is squarely covered against assessee and in favour of Revenue by judgment of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Smt. Kala Rani vs. CIT (1981) 23 CTR (P&H) 17: (1981) 130 ITR 321 (P&H). He pointed out that issue before Hon ble High Court was as to whether income was assessable under head house property in case of person in whose favour sale deed had not been registered and whether he was owner of property as contemplated by s. 22 of IT Act. It was held that before person could be assessed under s. 22 of IT Act, 1961, it was not necessary that he must be owner of property by virtue of sale deed in his favour. What is being taxed under s. 22 is income from house property or annual value of property of which assessee is owner. If in given case it was found as fact that assessee was in occupation of building as owner to all intents and purposes, except sale deed in his favour, then he was liable to tax under s. 22. It was held that assessee occupied property after execution of agreement of sale in his favour in year 1964 and after completion of building, he was in position to earn income from property sold to him. Further entire consideration was paid to vendor earlier at time of execution of agreement to sell in 1964 and no payment was made at time of execution of registered sale deed in 1969. Therefore, Tribunal was right in holding that income from self- occupied property was includible in assessee s income for asst. yr. 1968- 69 and 1979-80. ld departmental representative urged that for assessing property under s.22 it was also condition that assessee must be owner of property. Hon ble High Court has held that it is not legal ownership but also beneficial ownership. As such beneficial ownership is ownership for all intents and purposes except sale deed. He, therefore, urged that ratio of decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court is clearly applicable to facts of case. He also relied on judgments of Bombay High Court in case of Estate Investment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 580 (Bom) (supra). He further pointed out that in case of CIT vs. Asha Land Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (supra) Hon ble Gujarat High Court has not considered judgements of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Bombay High Court referred to above. He, therefore, urged that orders of AAC are liable to be reversed and that ITO restored. I have considered submission of ld. departmental representative. In my opinion, Revenue deserves to succeed. At time of hearing, it was noticed that assessee possessed lands of two types. Lands which were registered in favour of assessee and lands which were not registered in favour of assessee, but possession thereof had been taken and other formalities except registration of sale deed had been completed. He also pointed out that there were sales which were registered and there were sales which were unregistered and there were also sales which could not be registered because assessee himself did not acquire title by registered sale deed. assessee could not pass better title through registered deed but still sold those properties. It is to be noted that he sold his right of possession with all easement right to purchasers who not only took possession but also put up further constructions thereon. Similarly in case of lands which are registered in favour of assessee but sale deeds are not registered in favour of purchasers but for all intents and purposes these have been parted with by assessee and given possession to purchasers who in certain cases have also put up construction thereon, it has to be held that receipts in instalments for such lands were in nature of business receipts. Income therefrom was, therefore, includible in income of assessee as business income from real estate. In view of these discussions I have no hesitation in reversing orders of AAC and restoring those of ITO. In result, appeals are allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. AVTAR SINGH