The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITA 3388/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8465 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3388/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD-380 014 / VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL WORKSHOP NARODA PATIA NARODA, AHMEDABAD-382-346 # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG 5587 H ( #& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#& / RESPONDENT ) #&( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR, CIT-DR '#& )( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR *+ ), / DATE OF HEARING 07/09/2017 -./0 ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/ 09 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMED ABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 19/09/2014 IN THE MATTER OF ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - UNDER S.143(3)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 26/03/2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE R EVENUE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.47,64,97,635/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR ACCID ENT CLAIMS OF EARLIER YEARS, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,56,963/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF SP ARE PARTS, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM LICENSE FEE OF CANTEEN AMOUNTING TO RS.7,49,05 ,653/- AS BUSINESS INCOME, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 3. THE LD.DR FOR THE ASSESSEE MR.SUNIL TALATI AT TH E OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1192/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2009-10 ORDER D ATED 28/04/2017. THE LD.AR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2598/AHD/2009 & 278 5/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2005-06 ORDER DATED 24/01/2013. THE LD.AR ACCOR DINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ISSUES INVOLVED ARE NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - 4. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY ADMITTED TH E AFORESAID ASSERTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND SU BMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH, WE ADJUDICA TE AS UNDER. 6. GROUND NO.1 CONCERNS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MOTO R ACCIDENT CLAIM OF EARLIER YEARS. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PAR A OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.1192/AHD/2014 (SUPRA) DEALING WITH T HE ISSUE READS AS UNDER:- 5. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.41,44,80,439/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR ACCID ENT CLAIMS OF EARLIER YEARS, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, 6. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSE IS ENGAGE D IN RENDERING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, AND OTHER ALLIED SERVICES, TO THE PUBLIC. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS, AGGREGATING TO RS 41,44,80,439, TOWARDS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS, BUT ALL THESE PAYMENTS DONOT PERT AIN TO THE CURRENT YEAR ALONE. WHEN MATTER WAS PROBED FURTHER, IT WAS DISCOVERED T HAT IN MANY CASES THE COMPENSATION AWARD BY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNA L (MACT) WAS GIVEN MUCH EARLIER, BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT CREATE ANY PROVISION OR LIABILITY AT THAT POINT OF TIME. ON THESE FACTS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLI NED THE DEDUCTION. IN APPEAL, HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT APPROVE THIS APPROA CH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS AS IT WA S HELD BY HIM THAT THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING POL ICY THE CLAIMS ARE BEING PAID AFTER THE AWARD BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBU NAL. THE AWARDS ARE PASSED BY MACT AFTER 6-7 YEARS AND AFTER THE RECEIP T OF ORDER THROUGH ADVOCATES THE LIABILITY IS DISCHARGED, SUBJECT TO T HE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUND WITH THE CORPORATION. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN SUBMIT TED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITY TAKES TIME TO GET CRYSTALLIZED AND AL L THESE CLAIMS BECAME DUE ONLY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WERE ACCORDINGLY HONOUR ED. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WERE AUDITED BY C&AG OF INDIA AND THERE H AS CERTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF RS.414480439/- WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT NO PROVISION IS BEING MADE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE DONE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE PARTIES OR ROUTES FIVE BY THE COURT BY DEAD OR INJURED PARTIES/RELATED IS DUE TO ACCIDENTS. THE LIABILITIES ARE THEREFORE, CR YSTALLIZED; MADE KNOWN AND DEBITED IN THE BOOKS ONLY WHEN AWARDS/ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE RECEIVED FROM THE ADVOCATES. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED B Y THE APPELLANT THAT THIS IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PREVIOUS YEAR'S EXPENDITURE. I T IS ALSO FURTHER BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWE D CONSISTENTLY ON THE SAME BASIS FOR ALL EARLIER YEARS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAI M OF CONSISTENCY THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004 - 05 ONWARDS WHEREIN NO DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS APPARENTLY BEEN MADE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE I'M IN CLINED TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZES ONLY AFTER THE AWARD BY THE MACT AND T HE PAYMENT IS MADE THEREAFTER IS CORRECT. THE APPELLANT CANNOT MAKE A PROVISION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE DISPUTED PARTY. THE PRO VISION MADE ON THAT BASIS WOULD BE TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. T HE DISPUTED LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE CRYSTALLIZED AFTER THE AWARD OF THE COURT W HICH DECIDES THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTABL E. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED BY T HE C&AG AND THESE FIGURES HAVE BEEN DULY CERTIFIED BY THEM. THE AO IS HOWEVER DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITIES HAVE BE EN CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE AWARD OF MACT. SUBJECT TO THE VERIFI CATION BY THE AO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY, PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 9. WE FIND THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE MACT AWARDS ARE BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE AT A LATER POINT OF TIME THAN THE DATE OF THE AWARD CA NNOT BE REASON ENOUGH TO DECLINE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THESE AWARDS. IT IS SOMETIMES POSSIBLE, RATHER ITS INHERENT MECHANISM OF THE SYSTEM AS IT EXISTS, THAT SOMETIMES THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DELAY IN COMMUNICATING THE AWARDS GRANTED BY MACT. THE AWARDS ARE GENERALLY CONVEYED THROUGH THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE ASSES SEE AND IT DOES TAKE TIME IN MANY CASES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS ARE DUPLICATION OF CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME LIABIL ITY, AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND TO GAIN AS A RESULT OF THIS DELAY IN ACCOUNTING. IN ANY EVENT, THE QUANTIFICATION OF CLAIMS IS VERIFIED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITORS AS ALS O THE CAG AUDIT TEAMS, AND THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTED IS BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR LAST 50 YEARS. AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, AS THERE IS NO D UPLICATION OF CLAIMS, AND, AS ASSESSEE DOES NOT ANYWAY GAIN ANYTHING FROM DELAYIN G ACCOUNTING FOR THESE CLAIMS, WE SEE NO REASONS TO REJECT THE CLAIMS MERELY BECAU SE THESE CLAIMS ARE ACCOUNTING FOR, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AT A POINT OF TIME L ATER THAN AWARDS BEING GRANTED I.E. WHEN THE ASSESSEE GETS TO KNOW ABOUT THE SAME. IN A NY EVENT, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF THE LIABILITY HAVING BEEN CRYSTALLIZED IN THE RELEV ANT PREVIOUS YEAR. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REGARDING CRYSTALLIZATION OF LIA BILITY, DOES NOT, THEREFORE, SURVIVE ANY LONGER. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO B EARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 10. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS DISMISSED. 7. IN PARITY AS ADMITTED BY BOTH SIDES, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - 8. GROUND NO.2 CONCERNS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHOR TAGE OF SPARE PARTS. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1192/AHD/2014 (SUPRA) . THE RELEVANT PARA DEALING WITH THE ISSUE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2009-10 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 11. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.31,17,322/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF SP ARE PARTS, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 12. SO FAR AS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS CONCERNED, T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SHORTAG E OF STOCK OF RS 31,77,322. WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS PROBED, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSUMED DIESEL FOR RS 592.18 CRORES AND CNG WORTH RS 67.04 CRORES, AND THE INHERENT NATURE OF THESE P RODUCTS IS SUCH THAT THERE IS SCOPE FOR EVAPORATION OF DIESEL AND CNG. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS EXPLANATION AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS 31,77,322 FOR WANT OF COMPLETE DETAILS. IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) REVERSE D THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HELD THAT THE LOSS, WHICH IS DULY CERTI FIED BY THE AUDITORS, IS UNDERSTANDABLE IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF PRODUCTS, A ND, ACCORDINGLY, DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 14. THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS VERY WELL REASONED AND IT DOES NOT INDEED CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WHEN AN ASSESSEE IS DEALING WITH SUCH A HUGE VOLUME OF DIESEL AND CNG, AS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US , IT IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THERE CAN BE SOME LOSS BY WAY OF EVAPORATION AND I N THE PROCESS OF DISTRIBUTING THE DIESEL AND CNG TO THE MOTOR VEHICLES. THIS LOSS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITORS AS WELL. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE LOSS IS EXCESSIVE OR ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - UNREASONABLE. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 15. GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS DISMISSED. 9. IN PARITY AS ADMITTED BY BOTH SIDES, GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.3 CONCERNS INCOME FROM LICENSE FEE OF CANTEEN WHICH WAS TREATED BY THE CIT(A) AS BUSINESS INCOME. 11. AS POINTED OUT, THE AFORESAID ISSUE HAS ALSO BE EN DEALT WITH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.2598 & 2785/AHD/2009 (SUPRA) RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ORDER DEALING WITH THE ISSUE ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- 7. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT RECEIPT OF LICENCEE FEE OF RS.5,49,41,560/- TOWARDS CANTEEN AND RS.25,67,477/- TOWARDS STAFF QUARTERS RENT WAS CHARGEABLE UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE H ELD THAT THE SAME ARE NORMAL INCOME FROM ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THIS INCOME WAS TAXED BY THE AO ALSO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS, AND THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THE SAME SHOUL D BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS RECEIPT IS PART OF THE ACTIVITY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME ALTHOUGH LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED STATUTORY DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 30%. HE ALSO PLACED RELIA NCE ON JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANNA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. DELHI CLOTH AND ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. AS REPORTED IN 59 ITR152. I N REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT SINCE THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS THE RENTAL INCOME, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY TAXED BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. REGARDING THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE EARLIER YEAR, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF SOME MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY THE AO IN THE EARLIER YEAR S, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE PERPETUATED. REGARDING THE RELIANCE PLACED ON BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.(SUPRA), IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ONLY RS.25,67,477/- IS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT OF STAFF QUARTERS, WHEREAS THE MAJOR AMOUNT OF RS.5,49,41,56 0/- IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LICENCE FEE TOWARDS CANTEEN RECEIVED FROM O UTSIDERS, AND HENCE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (SUPRA ) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS TYPE OF RECEIPT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND HAVE PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRST, WE DISCUSS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF JU DGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANNA HIGH COURT) RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE, A FINDING IS GIVEN THAT THE RENTAL OF THE PREMISES WAS FIXED AND IT DID NOT CHANGE WITH THE CHANGE OF OCCUPANTS AND IT WAS DEDUCTED FROM TH E WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES OCCUPYING THE PREMISES. IT CANNOT BE SHO WN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THESE FACTS ARE I DENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, EVEN IN THE RESPECT OF INCOME FROM RENT TOWARDS STA FF QUARTER. ADMITTEDLY, THE MAJOR PART OF THE INCOME FOR THE LICECE FEE OF CANTEEN IS NOT FROM STAFF, BUT FROM OUTSIDERS AND HENCE THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS R ECEIPT AT ALL, AND EVEN FOR THE RECEIPT OF RENT ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF QUARTER, THE JU DGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. REGARDING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS INCOME WAS TAXED U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN EARLIER YEARS, WE FIND THAT ON THE PLEA OF CONSISTENCY, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT IF A MISTAKE IS COMMITTED BY THE AO IN EARLIER YEARS, THE SAME SHOULD BE PERPETUATED. THIS IS NOT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME IS NOT IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS RENTAL INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, AND THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ITA NO.3388/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. M/S.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - 12. IN PARITY AS PER THE CONSENSUS REACHED ON BEHAL F OF BOTH THE SIDES, GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN CONSO NANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 / 0 9 /201 7 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12 / 09 /2017 4..*,.*../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #& / THE APPELLANT 2. '#& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567, 8, / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8, ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:;,*67 , 67 0 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '9,, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD