MAKEWAVES SEA RESORT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT CENT. CIR. 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 36/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4551 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY B SAWANT
• Keywords: Business income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Set aside
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 36/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 2014 ITA NO. 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 2015 MAKEWAVES SEA RESORT PVT. LTD., CONST RUCTION HOUSE, B, 2 ND FLOOR, 623, LINKING ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI - 400052 PAN: AAACM0673J VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BLDG., NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY B. SAWANT (A R) REVENUE BY : SHRI D.G. PANSARI (D R) DATE OF HEARING: 13/02 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 / 03 /201 9 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE TWO ORDERS DATED 06.11.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 52 , MUMBAI (FOR SHORT THE CIT (A)) , PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) . 2. SINCE, THE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL, THESE WERE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER A ND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 ITA NO. 36/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 1 4 ) 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE , A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HOTELS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING NIL INCOME. SINCE, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, NOTICE U/S 143 (2) AND 142 (1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE. 4. SINCE, I T WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING FINISHED GOODS/CLOS ING STOCK OF RS. 1,75,40,174/ - , AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BREAK - UP OF THE ITEMS SHOWN IN THE INVENTORY UNDER FINISHED GOODS. SINCE, THE STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS CONSIST ED OF ONE FLAT OF VALUE AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,97,058/ - , THE AO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO MPANY LTD. (2013) 354 ITR 180 HELD THAT THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (AL V ) OF THE SAID UNSOLD UNIT IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ITS AL V . HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE THE SAME . ACCORDINGLY, AO FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA DEVI DALMIA 4 TAXMANN 183, D ETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY @ 7% OF THE INVESTMENT AND DETERMINED THE AL V AT RS. 1,53,795/ - AND AFTER ALLOWING THE STANDARD DEDUCTION @ 30% , AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,07,657/ - WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN 3 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 CHARGING NOTIONAL INCOME CONSIDERING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF ONE UNS OLD FLAT WHICH IS CLOSING STOCK OF THE APPELLANT TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,07,657/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 1. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S C.R. DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD. V/S JCIT - 8(1)(OSD), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 4277/MUM/2012) DECIDED ON 13 TH MAY, 2015. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C R DEVELOPMENT S PVT. LTD. VS. JCIT - 8(1)(OSD), MUMBAI ITA NO. 4277/MUM/2012 DATED 13.05.2015 , IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. SINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE H EARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL T HE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CA SE OF FERANI HOTELS LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ARE AS UNDER: - 6. UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.13,22,90,044/ - UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED INCOME FROM UNSOLD UNIT/ FLAT WHICH WAS CLOSING STOCK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 22 AND 23 OF THE ACT. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING ITS INCOME FROM HOTEL BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DERIVING INCOME FROM DIVIDEND, SHARE OF PROFIT AND SALE OF FLATS AND DUE TO THE RECESSION, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO 4 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 SOLD OUT ALL THE FLATS, THEREFORE, SOME FLATS REMAIN VACANT WHICH WAS BEING TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE AO HAS WRONGLY ASSESSED THE NOTIONAL RENT AND ASSESSED THE RENT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION U/S 24 OF THE ACT WRONGLY WHICH CAN ONLY BE TREATED UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE CASE OF RUNWAL CONSTRUCTION VS. ACIT IN ITA. NO. 5408/M/2016 & C.R. DEVELOPMENTS VS. JCIT IN ITA. NO. 4277/M/2012 DATED 13.05.2015. HOWEVER, ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTION. ON APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT RECORD ON THE FILE, WE NOTICED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING OF INCOME FROM HOTEL BUSINESS AND CONSTRU CTION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS RUNNING A FIVE STAR HOTEL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF THE CARLTON AT KODAIKANNAL, TAMIL NADU, HAVING ROOMS AND OTHER FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM DIVIDEND, SHARE OF PROFIT FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND PROFIT FR OM SALE OF FLATS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SOLD THE FLAT WHICH WAS BEING TREATED BY HIM AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE AO ASSESSED THE NOTIONAL INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME AS HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH HAS NO DOUBT CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS HOUSE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE FINDING IN THE CASE OF M/S. RUNWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT IN ITA. NO.5409/M/2016 DATED 22.02.2018 WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA NO. 7 TO 10 AND ARE HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER.: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS AND CONST RUCTION. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE CONSTRUCTED VARIOUS PROJECTS AND THE PROJECTS WERE TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEES WERE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THERE WERE CERTAIN UNSOLD FLATS IN STOCK IN TRADE WHICH THE AO TREATED AS PROPERTY ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND COMPUTED NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE ON SUCH UNSOLD FLATS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPR A). THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. THE HON'BLE 5 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM ANY PROPERTY IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS CAN BE CLA IMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE SAID PROPERTY WAS INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT OR TO CONSTRUCT AND LET OUT THE SA ME, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS STOCKS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE STOCK IN TRADE AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH STOCKS CANNOT BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WHILE HOLDING SO THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 8. TRUE IT IS, THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY WOULD ALWAYS BE TERMED AS 'INCOME' FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS USED AS 'STOCK - IN - TRADE', THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WOULD BECOME OR PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE STOCK, AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE STOCK, WOULD BE 'INCOME' FROM THE BUSINESS, AND NOT INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT OR TO CONSTRUCT AND LET OUT THE SAME, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE 'BUSI NESS' AND THE BUSINESS STOCKS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE 'STOCK - IN - TRADE', AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH STOCKS CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY'. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS DISTINCTION B ETWEEN THE 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AND 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY' ON ONE SIDE, AND 'ANY INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE TRIBUNAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WAS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED IN COMPARING THE RENTAL INCOME WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON THE SHARES OR INTE REST INCOME ON THE DEPOSITS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE TRIBUNALS AND, ALL OF SUDDEN, THE TRIBUNAL STARTED APPLYING THE ANALOGY. 9. FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD CLEARLY APPEAR THAT IT WAS TREATING TH E PROPERTY AS 'STOCK - IN TRADE'. NOT ONLY THIS, IT WILL ALSO BE CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE GROUND FLOOR, WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT. IF THAT BE SO, THE PROPERTY, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS A 'STOCK - IN - TRADE'. 9. SIMILARLY THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED SIMILAR ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE UNSOLD PROPERTY WHICH IS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY NOTIONALLY COMPUTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE FROM SUCH PROPERTY AND THE COORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL 6 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH THE AO RELIED UPON AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 373 ITR 673, HELD THAT UNSOLD FLATS WHICH ARE IN STOCK IN TRADE SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIM ATING RENTAL INCOME FROM THOSE FLATS AND NOTIONALLY COMPUTING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. WHILE HOLDING SO THE COORDINATE BENCH OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 3. THE LD. AR PLACED THE ORDER OF BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PERFECT SCALE C OMPANY PVT. LTD., ITA NOS.3228 TO 3234/MUM/2013, ORDER DATED 6 - 9 - 2013, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF ASSETS HELD AS BUSINESS, INCOME FROM THE SAME IS NOT ASSESSABLE U/S.23(1) OF THE IT ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD., 354 ITR 180 (DELHI) IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF UNSOLD FLATS BY THE DEVELOPER IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE FILE OF AO TO COMPUTE THE ANNUAL VALUE. RECENTLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT, REPO RTED IN (2015) 42 SCD 651, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 9 - 4 - 2015 HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF LETTING OUT PROPERTIES AND THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME, THE ACTION OF AO TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN PLACE OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS MAIN OBJECT, IS TO ACQUIRE AND HELD PROPERTIES AND TO LET OUT THESE PROPERTIES, THE INCOME EARNED BY LETTING OUT THESE PROPERTIES IS MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, RENT RECEIVED FROM THE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ON THE VERY SAME ANALOGY IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSI NESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE THREE FLATS WHICH COULD NOT BE SOLD AT THE END OF THE YEAR WAS SHOWN AS STOCK - IN - TRADE. ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME BY THE AO FOR THESE THREE FLATS AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED INSOFAR AS THESE FLATS WERE NEITHER GIVEN ON RENT NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTION TO EARN RENT BY LETTING OUT THE FLATS. THE FLATS NOT SOLD WAS ITS STOCK - IN - TRADE AND INCOME ARISING ON ITS SALE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS 7 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 INCO ME. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF AO FOR ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME FROM THESE VACANT FLATS U/S.23 WHICH IS ASSESSEES STOCK IN TRADE AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY ES TIMATING LETTING VALUE OF THE FLATS U/S.23 OF THE I.T. ACT. 10. IN THE CASE ON HAND BEFORE US IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BOTH ASSESSEES HAVE TREATED THE UNSOLD FLATS AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE FLATS SOLD BY THEM WERE ASSESSED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT THE UNSOLD FLATS WHICH ARE STOCK IN TRADE WHEN THEY WERE SOLD THEY ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHEN THEY ARE SOLD AND THEREFORE THE AO IS NOT CORRECT IN BRINGING TO TAX NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE IN RESPECT OF THOSE UNSOLD FLATS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THUS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y. 7. IN THE CASE OF TITLED AS M/S. C.R. DEVELOPMENTS P. LTD. VS. JCIT. THE RELEVANT PARA IN 5 IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER.: - 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE FILE OF AO TO COMPUTE THE ANNUAL VALUE. RECENTLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN (2015) 42 SCD 651, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 9 - 4 - 2015 HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENG AGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF LETTING OUT PROPERTIES AND THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME, THE ACTION OF AO TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN PLACE OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS MAIN OBJECT, IS TO ACQUIRE AND HELD PROPERTIES AND TO LET OUT THESE PROPERTIES, THE INCOME EARNED BY LETTING OUT THESE PROPERTIES IS MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, RENT RECEIVED FROM THE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ON THE VERY SAME ANALOGY IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE THREE FL ATS WHICH COULD NOT BE SOLD AT THE END OF THE YEAR WAS SHOWN AS STOCK - IN - TRADE. ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME BY THE AO FOR THESE THREE FLATS AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED INSOFAR AS THESE FLATS WERE NEITHER GIVEN ON RENT NOR THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 HAS INTENTION TO EARN RENT BY LETTING OUT THE FLATS. THE FLATS NOT SOLD WAS ITS STOCK - INTRADE AND INCOME ARISING ON ITS SALE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF AO FOR ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME FROM THESE VACANT FLATS U/S.23 WHICH IS ASSESSEES STOCK IN TRADE AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY ESTIMATING LETTING VALUE OF THE FLATS U/S.23 OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. IN THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE P RESENT CASE IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE MENTIONED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE LAW RELIED UPON THE LAW REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. RUNWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT AND M/S. C.R. DEVELOPMENTS P. LTD. VS. JCIT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS WHEREAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY BEEN COVERED BY THE LAW MENTIONED ABOVE, THEREFORE, BY HONORING THE ORDERS MENTIONED ABOVE. WE DELETED THE ADDITION RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON ACC OUNT OF NOTIONAL INCOME OF VACANT FLATS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 9. THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD . (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DELETED THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENT DETERMINED BY THE AO BY HOLDING THAT THE ALV OF THE UNSOLD UNIT OF ASSESSEE PROJECT IS ASSESSABLE UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT (A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . ITA NO. 37/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 1 5 THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED I N THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE AY. 2013 - 9 ITA NO S . 36 & 37/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 14. SINCE, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), CONSISTENT WITH OUR FINDINGS, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE SAME REASONS AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MARCH , 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 20 / 03 / 2019 ALINDRA PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI