, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2203/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 CHENNAI VS. M/S ESKAY DESIGN 6/25, 1 STREET, CENOTAPH ROAD TEYNAMPET CHENNAI 600 018 [PAN AAAFE 1480 C ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.B KOLI, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 10 - 02 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 03 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNA I, DATED 20.8.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS CLASSIFI CATION OF RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2203/15 :- 2 -: 3. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RP AD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD POSTAL ACKNOWLEDG EMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF REC EIPT OF NOTICE, NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKE N UP FOR HEARING. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PROCEEDED TO DIS POSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 4. SHRI A.B KOLI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE LD. DR FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK A PREMISES ON LEASE FROM HIS HOL INESS MOUNA MUTT DHARMAPURA ADHINAM. AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT, TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID A LEASE RENT OF ` 8,27,592 TO HIS HOLINESS MOUNA MUTT DHARMAPURA ADHINAM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE SUB- LETTED THE PREMISES TO FIVE VARIOUS PERSONS AND REC EIVED RENTAL INCOME OF ` 1,01,45,105/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE P ROPERTY. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS HIS HOLINESS MOUNA MUTT DHARMAPU RA ADHINAM, THEREFORE, THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR A ND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDL Y, THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE PREMISES AT DOOR NO.121, NEW NO.46, R.K SA LAI, MYLAPORE, ITA NO. 2203/15 :- 3 -: CHENNAI 600 004 FOR LEASE. THE ASSESSEE LET OUT T HE SAME TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME OF ` 1,01,45,105/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. FR OM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT APPEARS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD AN OCC ASION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AN D 2009-10. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOUND THAT THE RENTAL INCOME HAS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN V IEW OF SEC. 27(IIIB) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE VERY SAME PROPERTY, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO CLASSIFY THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THIS TRIBUNA L IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLL OWED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, T HIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RD ITA NO. 2203/15 :- 4 -: &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF