Late Smt. Suraj Bai Jain Through L/h Shri Shantilal Jain, Mandsaur V. DCIT, Ratlam

CO 7/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3553 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K C SELVAMANI
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

[ITA NO.315/IND/2016 & CO NO.7/IND/2016] [LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN, MANDSAUR] , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.315/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DCIT RATLAM / VS. LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN THROUGH L/H SHRI SHANTILAL JAIN 1, STEEL NAGAR, MAHOW NEEMUCH ROAD MANDSAUR ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. ACMPJ4441Q C.O. NO.7/IND/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.315/IND/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN THROUGH L/H SHRI SHANTILAL JAIN 1, STEEL NAGAR, MAHOW NEEMUCH ROAD MANDSAUR / VS. DCIT RATLAM (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) [ITA NO.315/IND/2016 & CO NO.7/IND/2016] [LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN, MANDSAUR] 2 APPELLANT BY SHRI K.C. SELVAMANI, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ARUN PADLIYA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING: 20.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.02.2019 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A), UJJAIN DATED 25.1.2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AN D THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,180/-, AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS.1,13,463/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) AND SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AFTER FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W. S. 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. H AS [ITA NO.315/IND/2016 & CO NO.7/IND/2016] [LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN, MANDSAUR] 3 NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PROPERTY ON LEASE FR OM M/S. MAHAVEER ENTERPRISES AND THE SAME IS SUB-LETTED T O MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION AND OFFERED THE INCOME RECEIVED OUT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTI ON AS INCOME FROM THE OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE A.O. H AS TREATED IT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON APPEAL, L D. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THER EFORE, THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ). 4. LD. D.R. ALSO STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. [ITA NO.315/IND/2016 & CO NO.7/IND/2016] [LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN, MANDSAUR] 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED I N THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. MAHAVEER ENTERPRISES, WHICH IS A LEASED PROPERTY SUB-LETTED TO MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY? ACCORDING TO THE A.O., IT IS AN INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AS TAKEN THE PROPERTY ON LEASE SUB-LETTED TO MADHYA PRADES H WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION AND INCOME RECEIVE D OFFERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FROM THE FACTS , IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A OWNER OF THE PROP ERTY, WHICH IS SUB-LETTED TO THE MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION. THEREFORE, THE INCOME DERIVE D FROM [ITA NO.315/IND/2016 & CO NO.7/IND/2016] [LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN, MANDSAUR] 5 THE PROPERTY ON LEASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORR ECTLY DECIDED THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A N INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. AS FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS CONCERNED, IT IS ONLY SUPPORTIVE TO THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMIS SED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 . 02.2019. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 22/02/2019 VG/SPS [ITA NO.315/IND/2016 & CO NO.7/IND/2016] [LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN, MANDSAUR] 6 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE