ADDL CIT RG 23(1), MUMBAI V. MACHINERY & SPARES, MUMBAI

ITA 5419/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3567 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL JUMANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI B BENCH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.5419/MUM/2009 A.Y 2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI. VS. M/S MACHINERY & SPARES, 201/202, KARMA STAMBH, OPP. MTNL OFFICE, VIKHROLI (W), MUMBAI 400 083. PAN: AAAFM 1528 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. HARGOVIND SINGH. RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUNIL JUMANI. O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WHETHER INCOME REC EIVED FROM ICICI BANK WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY OR AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT IDE NTICAL ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y 2005-06 IN I.T.A.NO. 3008/MUM/2008. IN THAT CASE THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VI DE PARA-4 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES FOR THE L AST 40 YEARS. THE PREMISES WERE WITH M/S BHARAT IMPORT AND EXPORTS AS TENANT AND THIS FIRM WAS DISSOLVED VIDE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERS HIP MADE ON 3/4/1958. THERE AFTER THE TENANCY RIGHT IN THE PREM ISES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY M/S VRI NDAVAN LAL GOVERDHAN LAL HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO CRE ATE SUB-TENANCY WITH THE REGARD TO THE PREMISES AND HAS GIVEN THEIR PREMISES FOR CREATING THE SUB-TENANCY IN FAVOUR OF ICICI BANK LT D. FOR A PERIOD OF 2 15 YEARS ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DETAILE D IN THEIR LETTER DATED 24/11/2000 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE, COPY THEREOF FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE US. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BECOME A DEEMED OWNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROVISION OF SECTION 27[IIIB] R.W.S. 269UA(F)(I) OF THE ACT. THE RE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE LETTER DATED 24/11/2000 OF M/S VRINDAVAN LAL GOVERDHAN LAL IS NOT GENUINE. THE FACT THAT THE AGR EEMENT FOR LETTING OUT THE PREMISES TO ICICI BANK LTD. IS FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS, CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE Y BECOME THE DEEMED OWNER UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 27[IIIB] R.W.S . 269UA(F)(I) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AS PRO VIDED U/S.24[A] OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN 8 S OT 441 AND CALCUTTA TRIBUNAL IN 89 ITD 199 COVERS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF CIT[A] IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE DEEMED OWNER OF THE PREMISES U/S.27[IIIB] OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT[A] IS CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGA INST THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 29 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P/-*