ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Samay India (P) Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 421/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 42121714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH , CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.421(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLEVI(1), CHENNAI. VS. M/S. SAMAY INDIA (P) LTD., F-39, PHASE-I, I FLOOR, SPENCER PLAZA, 769- ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 PAN AACCS9728A. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RA I, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH AUGUST, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 TH AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE - - ITA NO.421(MDS)/2011 2 ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI DATED 11-11-2010. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASS ESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE EARNS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY B Y WAY OF RENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR A RECE IPT BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF ` 33,61,085/- TOWARDS AIR CONDITIONING CHARGES PROVIDED TO ITS TENANT. IN COMPUTING THE HOUSE PRO PERTY INCOME THIS REIMBURSEMENT WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M ITS GROSS COLLECTION AND THE STATUTORY COMPUTATION OF HOUSE P ROPERTY INCOME WAS MADE ON THE REDUCED AMOUNT. BUT WHILE C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` .33,61,085/- WAS ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FIRST APPEAL THI S ADDITION WAS DELETED. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN T HE PRESENT APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- - - ITA NO.421(MDS)/2011 3 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE AMOUNT OF ` 33,61,085/- ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEES RENTAL INCOME INCLUDING MAINTENANCE CHARGES COLLECTED AS PER ITS P&L A/C IS ` 1,18,68,464/-. AFTER DEDUCTING MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF ` 33,61,085/-, THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WOULD BE ` 85,07,379/- BEFORE OTHER ELIGIBLE DEDUCTIONS. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE STATE MENT OF TOTAL INCOME WHILE CALCULATING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ONCE AGAIN DEDUCTED THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF ` 33,61,085/- FROM ` 85,07,379/-. THIS HAS RESULTED IN A DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT THE SUM OF ` 85,07,379/- HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT ONLY AFTER DEDUCTING THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF ` 33,61,085/-. - - ITA NO.421(MDS)/2011 4 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOBO DY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT IN SPITE OF NOTICE. IN AN EARLIER OCCASION ALSO WHEN THE APPEAL WAS POSTED , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURN ED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE AP PEAL EX- PARTE, QUA, THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HEARD SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPEARING FOR THE REVEN UE. 6. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) H AS TAKEN A JUST AND PROPER VIEW OF THE MATTER. THERE IS NO DO UBT THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 33,61,085/- DID REPRESENT REIMBURSEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONING CHARGES PAYABLE BY THE TENANT TO THE M AINTENANCE COMPANY M/S. PLAZA MAINTENANCE SERVICES LTD. NECES SARILY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS REIMBURSED AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED IN T HE GROSS INCOME COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TDS WAS MADE O N THE GROSS AMOUNT. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REIM BURSEMENT - - ITA NO.421(MDS)/2011 5 FORMS PART OF THE RENTAL INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LEASE DEED ITSEL F CONTAINED A CLEAR BIFURCATION OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TOWARDS RENT AN D AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR AIR CONDITIONING CHARGES TO THE MAINTEN ANCE COMPANY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT TO BE DI STURBED. 7. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH AUGUST, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR /GF