JYEMKO, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI

ITA 513/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78752 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK R VORA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 513/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. JYEMKO ACIT, CIRCLE - 17 & 28 301, DESTINATION BUILDING M.G. ROAD, CHEMBUR MUMBAI 400089 VS. ROOM NO. 466, 4TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AAAFJ1075C APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRATIK R. VORA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJEEV JAIN DATE OF HEARING: 01.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.05.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-39, MUMBAI AND IT P ERTAINS TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE URGED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXING RS.55,71, 315/- BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF ALTEMATE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THEM. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXING RS.55,71,315/- BEING THE A MOUNT RECEIVED FROM LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREBY DENYING DEDUCTION OF 30% OF THE ANNUAL VALUE UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.2,40,000/- BEING INTEREST PAID ON LOAN BORROWED AND UTILISED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY. ITA NO. 513/MUM/2013 2 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXI NG RS.19,04,400/- BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ANKUR DEVELOPERS FOR LOSS OF RENT DURING THE PERIOD OF RECONSTRUCTIO N OF THE RAJDOOT BUILDING. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE SAI D AMOUNT WAS NOT INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXING RS.19,04,400/- BEING THE A MOUNT RECEIVED FROM ANKUR DEVELOPERS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREBY DENYING DEDUCTION OF 30% UNDER SECTION 24 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE ITAT J BE NCH, MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 (I TA NO. 8193/MUM/ 2011, ITA 8276/MUM/2011 & ITA NO. 8202/MUM/2011 DAT ED 14.03.2014) WHEREIN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM LIFE INSURANCE COR PORATION OF INDIA IN RESPECT OF ALTEMATE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THEM WAS HELD TO BE TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED LOAN UTILISED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCT ION. 4. THE THIRD ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORECITED DECISION. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUES STAND SQU ARELY COVERED BY THE AFORECITED DECISION. 6. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS STATED THEREIN WE HOLD THA T THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA I S ASSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND, THEREFOR E, ANSWER QUESTIONS NO. 1 & 2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, INTERES T PAID ON BORROWED LOAN UTILISED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCT ION AND HENCE GROUND NO. 3 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4 THE TRIBUNAL H ELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ANKUR DEVELOPERS IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND REJECT GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 513/MUM/2013 3 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEW TAKEN WITH REGARD TO GROUN D NO. 4, GROUND NO. 5 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT GROU ND NO. 5. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 1 ST MAY, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 39, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CENTRAL-II, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.