DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. New Delhi Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4550/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6749 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHANDER DUBEY
• Keywords: Business income; Wrong claim; Assessment record; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 A.YRS.2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13(1), ROOM NO. 212, CR BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS. M/S NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD., THE HOTEL AMBASSADOR, SUJAN SINGH PARK, NEW DELHI 110 003 (PAN: AAACN0592R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHANDER DUBEY, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. ANOOP SHARMA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 27-07-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 29-07-2016 ORDER PER BENCH THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE FOUR APPEALS AGAINST THE SEPARATE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-XVI), NEW DELHI RELEVANT FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2010-11. SINCE THE IS SUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 2 TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BY DEALING WITH ITA NO. 4550/DEL/2014 (AY 2005-06). 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE CO MMON, HENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF ITA NO. 4550/DEL/2014 ONLY, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE RENTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ACCOUNTING THE UNSOLD FLATS AS ITS STOCK IN TRADE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS SINCE THE TIME OF ITS INCEPTI ON. THEREFORE, ANY PROFIT ARISES OUT OF THE SALE OF BUI LDING AND FLATS OR RENTING OUT IS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUS INESS INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE HIGH COU RT DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEAR IG NORING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON MERITS. ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 3 HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT DID NOT CONTEST IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD ANY FR ESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND / OR DELETE OR AMEND ANY OF T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D E-FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,62,45,51 2/- ON 19.10.2015. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) ON 20.9.2008 AT THE DECLARED RETURNED INCOME. ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS MADE ON 19.3.2007 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,62,65,510/- ON PERUSAL OF TH E ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANC IES / WRONG CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 28.3.201 2 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 30.3.2012, AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR THE SAME ON 28.3.2012 AND APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITI ES. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 7.6.2012 AND REQUESTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S. 1 39(1) ON 27.10.2007 MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN 1968 WITH TH E OBJECT OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS. THE COMPANY DEVELOPED THE PROJECTS LIKE NEW DELHI HOUSE AND MER CANTILE HOUSE AT ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 4 CONNAUGHT PLACE, HERITAGE CITY AT GURGAON (IN COLLA BORATION WITH UNITECH LTD.) AT PRESENT THE COMPANY HAS MAIN OBJECT OF ALL KINDS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK AND SALE / PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 4.6.2012 AND U/S. 143(2) ON 8.6.2012 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY REGD. POST. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, AS SESSEES AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE DETAILS FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREAFTER, AO OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LETTING OUT OF UNSOLD FLATS IN MERCANTILE HOUSE FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM RENT HAS A DEFINITE AND INDENTIFIABLE N EXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAID INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY. ACCORDINGLY, DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 24 OF THE AC T AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,86,258/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,03 ,51,768/- BY PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 18.3 .2013. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT O RDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 23.5.2014 HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 5 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS AND REQUESTED THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO MAY BE UPHEL D. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 17.5.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 238-240/ DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE TITLED AS NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD. V S. ACIT WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS LATER FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF DELHI JUDGMENT DATED 17.5.2013, AS AFORESAID, AND BY UPHOLDING TH E LD. CIT(A)S ORDER, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CONSI DERED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE I MPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE VIDE PARA NO. 4.1 TO 4.2 AT PAGES 3 TO 5 IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAI D RELEVANT PARA 4.1 TO 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDE R:- 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. GROUND NO. 1 OF AP PEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NOT PRESSED FOR BY THE ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 6 APPELLANT. THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR . IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT AO HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS 'BUSINESS INCOME' INSTEAD OF 'INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN 1968 WITH THE OBJECT OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS. THE COMPANY DEVELOPED THE PROJECTS LIKE NEW DELHI HOUSE AND MERCANTILE HOUSE AT CANNAUGHT PLACE, HERITAGE CITY AT GURGAON. THE COMPANY HAS MAIN OBJECT OF ALL KINDS OF CONSTRUCTIO N WORK AND SALE/PURCHASE OF ROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN UNSOLD FLATS AS ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE AS PER SCH EDULE 6 OF BALANCE SHEET AND RENT FROM UNSOLD FL.ATS AT MERCANTILE HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE WAS SHOWN AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OF RS. 1,88,23,077/- FROM LETTING OUT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION ULS 24 OF RS. 40,86,258/- AND PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAX OF RS. 52,02,219/-, AN INCOME OF RS. 95,34,600/- WAS DECLA RED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AO OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF BUYING AND SELLING OF PROPERTY, THE INCOME FROM LETTING OF THE ASSETS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 7 HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, AO HELD THAT THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 24 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. A O OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE FLATS ARE IN THE NATURE OF STOCK- IN-TRADE, INCOME RELATING THERETO SHOULD BE ASSESSE D AS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, INCOME FROM RENT OF PROPERTY IS TREATED BY THE AO AS BUSINESS INCOME AN D THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED ULS 24 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,86,258/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.2 IT IS SEEN THAT IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IN A Y 2004-05, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. IN THE ABOV E ASSESSMENTS, AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S 24 AND RENT FROM PROPERTY HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WA S TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST APPELLANT'S C LAIM OF THE SAME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. LD. CIT( A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME IS TO BE TRE ATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT HON'BLE ITAT UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE AO. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DECISION OF I TAT, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA 238/2013, 23912013 AND 240/2013 IN DECISION DT. 17.05.2013 FOR THE AY 2004-05, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 8 LD. CIT(A) THAT RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS UNDER :- '4. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE HEAD OF 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION', WHEREAS IT IS THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. IT APPEARS THAT THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER DEBATABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. DECIDED ON 31.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 18/1999. THAT DECISION HAS, SUBSEQUENTLY, BEEN FOLLOWED IN CIT V. DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD (IN ITA NOS. 1089/11 AND 1090/2011) AND CI V. DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD.(IN ITA NO. 1097/2011) DECIDED ON 18.02.2013. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD AND DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WAS 'WHETHER THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'?' THIS COURT ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE BY ITA NOS. 238/13,239/13&240/13 PAGE 2 OF 4 FOLLOWING ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 9 THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD (SUPRA). 5. MR MARATHA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD (SUPRA) WAS A DECISION WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WITH REGARD TO DEEMED RENT ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL REN T RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF FLATS LET OUT BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD AND DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD (SUPRA) THE ISSUE WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF ACTUAL RENT RECEIPTS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF DEEMED RENT. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD AND DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WOULD GOVERN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. 6. CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE FRAMING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OF 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION' AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', WE ANSWER ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 10 THE SAME IN THE NEGATIVE. WE MAY ADD, HOWEVER, THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO TAKEN THE PLEA OF CONSISTENCY ITA NOS. 238/13,239/13&240/13 PAGE 3 OF 4 BUT, WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE POSITION INDICATED ABOVE. 7. THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE.' A THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IT IS HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATIN G THE ABOVE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 24. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE GROUND. 7.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AS AFORESAID, WE HAVE SEEN THAT IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IN AY 2004-05 , 2008-09 AND 2009-10. IN THE ABOVE ASSESSMENTS, AO D ISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 24 AND RENT FROM PROPERTY HE LD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF THE SAME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED T HE APPEAL OF THE ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 11 ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON FURTHE R APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT ITAT UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE AO. ON APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DECISION OF ITAT, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN ITA 238/2013, 239/2013 AND 240/2013 IN DECISION DT. 17.05.2013 FO R THE AY 2004-05, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT( A) THAT RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS UNDER: '4. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE HEAD OF 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION', WHEREAS IT IS THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. IT APPEARS THAT THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER DEBATABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. DECIDED ON 31.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 18/1999. THAT DECISION HAS, SUBSEQUENTLY, BEEN FOLLOWED IN CIT V. DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD (IN ITA NOS. 1089/11 AND 1090/2011) AND CI V. DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD.(IN ITA NO. 1097/2011) DECIDED ON 18.02.2013. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD AND DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WAS 'WHETHER THE INCOME-TAX ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 12 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'?' THIS COURT ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE BY ITA NOS. 238/13,239/13&240/13 PAGE 2 OF 4 FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD (SUPRA). 5. MR MARATHA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD (SUPRA) WAS A DECISION WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WITH REGARD TO DEEMED RENT ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL REN T RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF FLATS LET OUT BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD AND DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD (SUPRA) THE ISSUE WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF ACTUAL RENT RECEIPTS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF DEEMED RENT. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN DISCOVERY ESTATES PVT. LTD AND DISCOVERY HOLDING PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WOULD GOVERN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 13 6. CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE FRAMING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OF 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION' AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', WE ANSWER THE SAME IN THE NEGATIVE. WE MAY ADD, HOWEVER, THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO TAKEN THE PLEA OF CONSISTENCY ITA NOS. 238/13,239/13&240/13 PAGE 3 OF 4 BUT, WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE POSITION INDICATED ABOVE. 7. THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE.' 7.2 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, AS AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ABOV E INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND CIT WAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUC TIONS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEE D ANY INTERFERENCE ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 14 ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 8. FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW, AS AFORESAID, ITA NOS. 4551 TO 4553/DEL/2014 (AYRS. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11) FI LED BY THE REVENUE ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 4 APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/7/2016. SD/- SD/- [ANADI N. MISHRA] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 29/7/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 4550-4553/DEL/2014 15