Sunitha Leather Trading Co (Madras) Pvt Limited, CHENNAI V. ITO Corporate Ward 6(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1037/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9215 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANATH KUMAR RAHA

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1037, 1038, 1039 & 1040/CHNY/2019 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 20 15-16 M/S SUNITHA LEATHER TRADING CO. (MADRAS) PVT. LTD., NO.7, THIRUNEERMALAI ROAD, PALLAVARAM, CHENNAI - 600 044. PAN : AAJCS 1457 P V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 6(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : NONE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANATH KUMAR RAHA, JCIT , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2019 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2019 / O R D E R ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 15, CHENNAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2012 -13, 2014-15 AND 2015-16. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDE RATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, I HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND D ISPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS.1037 TO 1040/CHNY/19 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOW LEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. EVEN AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT WHEN THE APPEALS WE RE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, I HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL T HESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETT ING OUT ITS PROPERTY IS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR INCOME FR OM BUSINESS? 4. SHRI SANATH KUMAR RAHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 IN I.T.A. NO.685/MDS/2015. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D. R., THE DIVISION BENCH FOUND THAT THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF ANY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THIS TRIBU NAL ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CONTINUOUSLY LET OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS. IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S O WN CASE IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE 3 I.T.A. NOS.1037 TO 1040/CHNY/19 CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF SLUGGISHNESS IN THE LEATHER INDU STRY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT USE THE ENTIRE BUILDING, THEREF ORE, THE VACANT AREAS IN THE PREMISES WERE LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPORTERS FOR STORAGE OF THEIR AIR CARGO BY WAY OF STOP GAP ARRAN GEMENT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO PERMANENT INTENTION TO L ET OUT THE BUILDING PERMANENTLY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT IT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THERE FORE, THE INCOME THEREFROM HAS TO BE ASSESSED ONLY AS INCOME FROM BU SINESS AND NOT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THIS TRIBUNAL F INDS THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S O WN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND FO UND THAT THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT VERY SAME PREMISES HAS TO B E ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN FA CT, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF DIVISION BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDING LY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4 I.T.A. NOS.1037 TO 1040/CHNY/19 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD JULY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 3 RD JULY, 2019 KRI. * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A)-15, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-6, CHENNAI 5. 4#7 (- /DR 6. 8' 9 /GF.