1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.5166/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) A CIT - 13(1)(1) 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.218 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. M/S. UNITED WHITE METAL LTD. BEYOND MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA GATE NO.4, WHITE CITY COMPOUND AKURLI ROAD, KANDIVALI (E) MUMBAI-400 101. ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACU-0983-H ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN VAJANI-LD. AR DEPARTMENT BY : CHOUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH -LD.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/05/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/05/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):- 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2013-14 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-21, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT (A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- 21/DCIT-13(1)(1)/IT-197/2016-17 DATED 29/05/2017 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE INCOME UNDER CONTENTION, AS INCOME UNDER THE HE AD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS 2 OR PROFESSION' INSTEAD OF 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY' AS CONSIDERED BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS CIT(2015) 373 ITR 673(SC) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUS INESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ENGINEERING GOODS. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [ AR], AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL MATTER STOOD COVERED IN AS SESSEES FAVOR BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2012-13, ITA NO.7075/ MUM/2016 DATED 26/12/2018. A COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED ON R ECORD. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN T HE IMPUGNED AY VIS--VIS AY 2012-13. NOTHING COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO S UGGEST THAT THE AFORESAID RULING IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 3. FACTS ON RECORD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EAR NED RENTAL INCOME FROM LETTING OF LAND AND BUILDING, WHICH HAS BEEN R EFLECTED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, LD. AO, UPON PERUSAL OF FACTUAL MATRIX, CA ME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS TO BE TAXED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REVERSED THE S TAND OF LD. AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEES STAND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE UP-TO AY 2011-12. FOR AY 2012-13, THE LD. AO, FOR THE FIRST TIME, TREATED THE LEASE RENT INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WAS REVERSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES S TAND WAS TO BE ACCEPTED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. UPON PERUSAL OF CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF FIRST 3 APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY DISMISSING THE REVENUES APP EAL. FACTS BEING PARI- MATERIA THE SAME, TAKING CONSISTENT STAND, WE DISMISS THE A PPEAL. 6. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 14/05/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'!% / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. ( )& * , * , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ) ,-. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.