ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh V. M/s Premier Electrical Industries, Chandigarh

ITA 1086/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4074 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1086 & 1087/CHD/2017 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) THE ACIT, VS. M/S PREMIER ELECTRICAL INDUS TRIES, CIRCLE 2(1), 147-148, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHANDIGARH. PHASE-1, CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AABFP0329C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR REVENUE BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN DATE OF HEARING : 25.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.08.2018 ORDER PER BENCH THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 24.04.2017 OF CIT(A)-I, CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2013-14 AND 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YE ARS. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDE R FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, T HE GROUNDS IN ITA 1086/CHD/2017 ARE BEING CONSIDERED WHICH ARE STATE D TO BE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA 1087/CHD/2017. FO R READY REFERENCE, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,96,220/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON ITS OWN DE CISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 WHICH WAS PASSED IN VIEW OF TH E ITAT'S ORDER IN THE A.Y. 2011-12, WHICH IS NOT YET ACCEPTABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A. Y. 2011-12 HAS ITSELF TREATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM 'OTHER SOURCE S'. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE INFORMATION CALLED U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT CLEARLY MENTIONS THEREIN THAT THERE WAS NO OLD STRUCTURE EXISTS AND A NEW HOTEL BUILDING M/S MANSAROVAR HOTEL P. LTD HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE NEW BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH FULL CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SIGNED THE DEE D ACCORDING TO WHICH HE ITA 1086&1087/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14, 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 6 SURRENDERED THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCTION OVER THE ENTI RE PROPERTY. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IGNORING THE FACT TH AT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP AS HE HAS GIVEN FULL CONSENT AND RIGHTS FOR CONSTRUCTION TO THE LESSEE, HE CANNOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED THAT THE DEED IN QUESTION IS FOR 50 YEAR S WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AS PER SECTION 269UA READ WITH SECTION 2(47) , THE ASSESSE E HAS NO OWNERSHIP OVER THE BUILDING. ACCORDINGLY HAS NO RIGHT TO CLAIM DEDUCTI ON. 3. THE LD. SR.DR RELIES UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. THE LD. A R, APART FROM RELYING UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IN 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR INVITED ATTENTION TO THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2014 IN ITA 77/CHD/2013 OF THE ITAT IN 2009-10 ASS ESSMENT YEAR AND ORDER DATED 03.10.2016 IN ITA 96/CHD/2015 PER TAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE SAME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THESE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES AND POSITION OF THE LAW THEREON, IT WAS SUBMITTED, CONTINUE TO REMAIN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT DEPARTMENTAL A PPEAL IN-FACT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND NO. 2 ITSELF, THE APPEAL APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ORDERS OF THE ITAT WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. BOTH THE PARTIES, APART FROM RELYING UPON THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS DID NOT MAKE A NY REFERENCE TO ANY ORDER, EITHER OF THE ITAT TO SHOW THAT THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN A M.A. U/S 254(2) SUBSEQUENTLY OR BY A THE DEC ISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN APPEAL. INFACT THE LD. AR HAS MADE A CLAIM T HAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OR POSITION OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THIS STATED POS ITION WHICH STANDS UNREBUTTED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL H AS BEEN FILED WITHOUT ANY MERIT. FOR READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT EXT RACT OF THE ITAT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 10. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM THE TENANT WAS NEVER SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND N EVER CONFRONTED. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KI SHAN CHAND CHELA RAM 125 ITR 713. 10(I) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT IS STATUTORY DEDUCTION AND IS NOT DEPENDANT UPON REPAIR OF ITA 1086&1087/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14, 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 6 BUILDING ETC., AS IS NOTED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 12.03.2007 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND TH E TENANT, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 61 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE LAND AND BUILDING WAS GIVEN ON RENT FOR A PERIOD OF 50 YEARS AND THERE AR E CLAUSES PROVIDED IN THE LEASE DEED THAT IN CASE THE LEASE IS NOT RENEWED, THE LES SEE/TENANT SHALL HAND OVER LAND AND BUILDING ALONGWITH ALL CONSTRUCTION TO THE ASSE SSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SCHEDULE-I TO LEASE DEED IS FILED AT PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUEST ION, THE LAND ALONGWITH BUILDING AND SUPER-STRUCTURE WAS GIVEN ON RENT TO THE TENANT . HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED RENT AL INCOME IN RETURN OF INCOME FROM THE SAME TENANTED PROPERTY AND CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT @ 30% OF THE ANNUAL VALUE WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEP TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 13.12.2011, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HOWEVER, ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY ITAT CH ANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA 77/2013 DATED 30.05.2014 AN D INTEREST UNDER SECTION 24(B) HAVE BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION BY THE TRIBUNAL. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE S AID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE LD. DR TO VER IFY THIS FACT, NO ADVERSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE DEPTT. BY ORDER OF ITAT IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10 (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN EA RLIER YEAR RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY, THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE CHANGED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND RELIED UPO N DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. 327 ITR 26. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-39 WHICH IS BALA NCE SHEET ON 31.03.2011 AND PB-45 IS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 IN WHICH TH E TENANTED PROPERTY CONSISTS OF LAND AND BUILDING, HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE INVEST MENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE TENANT HAS RAISED SOME CONSTRUCTION OVER THE DEMISED PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE LEGAL BAR FOR ASSESSEE TO CLAIM RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY AND ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR STATUTORY DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 24(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OWNER OF THE SUPER STRUCTURE AND OLD CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND NEW CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE TENANT, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ANALYZED THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED FOR ARRIVING A T THE DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES, DEDU CTION FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE DEDUCTION, (A) A SUM EQUAL TO 30% OF ANNUAL VALUE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT PROPERTY IN QUES TION WAS LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S SAROVAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. (TENANT) VIDE REGISTER ED LEASE DEED DATED 12.03.2007. ACCORDING TO THE DEED, THE TENANTED PR OPERTY CONSISTS OF LAND AND BUILDING AS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE-I WAS LET OUT TO THE TENANT. THE SCHEDULE-I TO THE LEASE DEED ALSO MENTIONED THAT BUILDING BUIL T UP IN THE PLOT IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN LET OUT TO THE TENANT. AT THE TIME OF GI VING POSSESSION OF THE TENANTED PROPERTY, IT IS ALSO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT LA ND ALONGWITH BUILDING CONSTRUCTED THEREON, HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE TENANT FOR TH E PURPOSE OF LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS LEASED ON L ONG TERM LEASE FOR A DURATION OF 50 YEARS. ACCORDING TO PARA 1.3 OF THE LEASE DE ED, IN CASE THE LEASE DOES NOT GET RENEWED, THE LESSEE AGREES TO HAND OVER LAND/PLOTS/ BUILDING ALONGWITH ALL CONSTRUCTION ETC. CARRIED OUT BY THE LESSEE, BACK T O THE LESSOR (ASSESSEE) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE PERIOD. ACCORDI NG TO CLAUSE 6.2(B) OF THE LEASE DEED, ON EXPIRY OF THE TERM OF THE LEASE, THE LESSE E SHALL WITHIN ONE MONTH HAND OVER PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE LAND/PLOTS AND THE STRUCTURE BUILT THEREON TO THE LESSOR (ASSESSEE). ITA 1086&1087/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14, 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 6 12(I) ACCORDING TO CLAUSE 11.4 OF THE LEASE DEED, UPON EXPIRY OR TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, LESSEE SHALL, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE EXPIRY OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, HAND OVER THE LAND/PLOTS WITH THE BUILDING T HEREON FREE FROM ANY LIEN OR ANY ENCUMBRANCE AND SHALL BE FREE TO REMOVE ITS MOVABLE ASSETS FROM THE HOTEL STRUCTURE OR ANY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND/ PLOT. 13. ACCORDING TO THE LEASE DEED ALSO, THE LESSEE ( TENANT) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO EFFECT AND CARRY OUT AT ITS COST, CONSTRUCTION, REN OVATION, REPAIR ETC. OF THE HOTEL STRUCTURE OR RAISE ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION. THE TER MS OF THE LEASE DEED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE TENANT, THEREFORE, CLEARLY DISCLOS E THAT THE DEMISED PROPERTY WAS LET OUT TO THE TENANT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF LEASE I. E. 50 YEARS AND AT THE TIME OF LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT THE LAND AND BUILDING TO THE TENANT WHICH IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE- I TO THE LEASE DEED AND AT THE TIME OF HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION. ACCORDING TO THE LEASE DEED, THE LESSEE/TENANT WAS AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ANY TYPE OF C ONSTRUCTION IN THE PROPERTY AND THE OTHER CLAUSES OF THE LEASE DEED, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, CLEARLY SHOW THAT IN CASE LEASE IS NOT RENEWED AFTER 50 YEARS OR THE LEASE IS TERMINATED, THE LESSEE/TENANT SHALL HAVE TO HAND OVER THE LAND/BUILDING ALONGWITH ALL CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT THEREON TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, CLEA RLY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT LAND AND BUILDING TO THE TENANT ALONGWITH SUPER STRUCTURE AND AT THE TIME OF VACATING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, ASSESSEE WOULD B E ENTITLED FOR RESTORATION OF LAND/BUILDING WITH SUPER STRUCTURE FROM THE LESSEE. SO LONG TENANCY CONTINUED, TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE DEMISED PROPERTY, TENANT COULD CARRY OUT ANY CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIR ETC. IN THE TENANTED PROPERT Y. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SHOWS THAT IN EARLIER YEAR, DEMISED P ROPERTY WAS LAND AND BUILDING. THE TENANT SHALL HAVE TO REVERT BACK TO THE ASSESSE E THE BUILDING AND SUPER STRUCTURE ON EXPIRY OF THE LEASE DEED. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT LAND AND BUILDING TO THE TENANT WITH SUPER STRUCTURE, THEREF ORE, THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED OUT OF THE LETTING OUT THE DEMISED PROPERTY, THE SA ME INCOME WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN EARLIER A SSESSMENT YEARS, ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTY AS IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTH ORITIES. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF 30 % UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 13.12.2 011 AND CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWE VER, DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON CONVERSION CHARGES PAID T O ESTATE OFFICER, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. HOWEVER, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BE NCH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2014 (SUPRA). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE HIGH COURT AND ACCEPTED BY T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, CLEARLY PROVE THAT ASSESSEE CLAIM ED STATUTORY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND WHEN INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT, IT WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NATURE OF INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS CLEARLY HELD TO BE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 24 HAS BEEN ALLOWED. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE REACHED FINALITY AS PER SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ON IDENTICAL FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN APPEAL ON SAME FACTS. 14. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. 327 ITR 26 HELD AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING TOURIST COMPLEXES, HOTELS/MOTEL S/RESORTS. IT DECLARED RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,16,50,981 UNDER THE HEAD 'IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. IT CLAIMED THAT SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS W ERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 2002-03 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD ACCEPTED S UCH INCOME AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SOUGHT TO ASSESS THE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005- ITA 1086&1087/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14, 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 6 06. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD TO BE MADE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO ALLOWED CLAI MS FOR DEDUCTION AND DEPRECIATION. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, (I) THAT ONCE A SIMILA R PROPOSITION HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSME NT YEAR 1997-98, THEN IT WAS NOT OPEN TO IT TO CHALLENGE A SIMILAR F INDING AND DEVIATE FROM ITS EARLIER STAND. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LETTI NG OUT OF SHOPS WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY' AND NOT INCOME FROM 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS PROFESSI ON'. 15. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT PRINCIPLE OF CONSIS TENCY APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF A.R.J. SECURITIES PRINTERS 264 ITR 276, DECISION OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODAWARI CORPORATION LTD. 156 ITR 835, DECI SION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIKAS CHEMI GUM I NDIA 276 ITR 32 AND DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS CIT 193 ITR 321. THESE FACTS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY PROVE ON RECO RD THAT ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT BUILDING TO THE TENANT AND AT THE TIME OF EXPIRY OF THE LEASE DEED, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR RESTORATION OF POSSESSION OF BUILDI NG WITH SUPER STRUCTURE, THEREFORE, MERELY THE TENANT HAS RAISED SOME CONSTR UCTION OVER THE DEMISED PROPERTY WOULD NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLA IMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALWAYS BE DEEM ED TO BE OWNER OF LAND AND BUILDING SO LET OUT. FURTHER, IF THE TENANT IS CLAI MING DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION ON THEIR CONSTRUCTED BUILDING, THERE IS NO BAR IN MAKI NG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW FURTHER DENIED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT O N THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS ALLOWED TO THE OWNER OF BUILDING SO THAT HE COULD C ARRY OUT REQUISITE REPAIRS TO THIS BUILDING. THESE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ARE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS STATUTORY DE DUCTION AND WOULD NOT DEPEND UPON CARRYING OUT OF ANY REPAIR IN THE BUILDING. A SUM EQUAL TO 30% OF THE ANNUAL VALUE IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION WITHOUT PROVING OR GIV ING ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY REPAIR ETC., THEREFORE, FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE WHOLLY INCORRECT AND WOULD NOT HOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 133(6) FROM THE TENANT WAS NEVER SUPPLIED OR CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT FIND ANY WHISPER IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS IF ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUPPLIED COPY OF INFORMATION UNDER SECT ION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING ANY ADVERSE ORDERS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ANY MATERIAL COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CALLING FOR COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WO ULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, THEREF ORE, RIGHTLY RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F KISHAN CHAND CHELA RAM (SUPRA). THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECO RD AGAINST ASSESSEE FOR DISALLOWING CLAIM UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT. 16. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RENTAL INCOME IS CL EARLY ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT. 17. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT IN A SUM OF RS. 57,10,796/-. GROUND NOS . 7, 2, 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED. ISSUE NO. 3 18. ON GROUND NO. 8, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER S OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EX PENSES OF RS. 58,91,669/- CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT AND PAYMENT OF RS. 4 0,37,979/- MADE TO ESTATE OFFICER. THE SAME ISSUE IS ALSO RAISED IN GROUND N O. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PA ID OF RS. 58,91,669/- CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT AND AGAINST TREATING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 40,37,979/- PAID TO ESTATE OFFICER AS CAPITAL EXPEN DITURE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ITA 1086&1087/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14, 2014-15 PAGE 6 OF 6 NOTED THAT SINCE HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING THA T RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' TH EREFORE, ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE LEASE MO NEY, MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA 77/2013 DATED 30.05.2014 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON THIS ISSUE IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO FOLLOW ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND PASS A CON SEQUENTIAL ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR POSITION OF LAW, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITA 1087/CHD/20 17 AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES CONTINUE TO REMAIN THE SAM E, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HEREIN IS ALSO DISMISSED. SAID ORDERS WERE PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.08.2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SING H) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.