VIJAY ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. DCIT 30(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5550/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3457 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA; D G
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR C GANDHI
• Keywords: Deemed owner of house property; Business income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 VIJAY ENTERPRISES GROUND FLOOR, EESHA KRIPA, BRAHMAN SABHA LANE, MALAD-(W) MUMBAI-400 064. VS. DCIT - 30(3), C-13 6 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051. PAN : AA AFV 2622 D ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR C. GANDHI RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA & SHRI D.G. PANSARI SR DRS DATE OF HEARING 26/04/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/04 /2019 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-41, MUMBAI [LD. CIT(A)] DATE D 24/06/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHICH ARISES FROM ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) DATED 31/03/2015 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED BY TREATING THE APPE LLANT'S UNSOLD PREMISES WHICH ARE HELD BY THEM AS STOCK IN TRADE, THE APPELLANT BEING BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, BY TREATING SUCH UNSOLD PREMISES AS DEEMED LET OUT AND CHARGING THE SAME TO TAX U/S 23 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ALTERNATIVELY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT' S EARLIER GROUND AND WITHOUT ADMITTING, IN THE EVENT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAVING MADE APPLICABLE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FOR THE APPELLANT'S STOCK-IN- TRADE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT GRANTING VAC ANCY ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH VACANT STOCK-IN-TRADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 2 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT'S EARLIER GRO UND AND WITHOUT ADMITTING, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT WORKING OUT DEEMED RENT BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE/RENT FOR THE UNSOLD FLATS AND THUS ER RED BY WORKING OUT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT BY TAKING MARKET RENT OF OTH ER FLATS/PREMISES. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER , SUBSTITUTE OR DELETE ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION IS A BUILDER AND DE VELOPER, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 26 SEPTEM BER 2012. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ITS INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS, CAPITAL GAIN AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 31.03.2015. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL LETTING V ALUE OF UNSOLD FLAT AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY. ON APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ACTION OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEF ORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERA TED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N PARA 6.3 ARE NOT CORRECT; THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LET OUT SUCH UNSOLD F LAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND HAS SHOWN THE UNSOLD UNITS AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 3 GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED BY THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEHA BUILDERS (P. ) LTD. ( 296 ITR 661) DATED 18 TH AUGUST, 2006 AND THE DECISIONS OF THE MUMBAI TRIBU NAL IN ITO VS ARIHANT ESTATE PVT LTD IN ITA NO.6037/MUM/20 16 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 DATED 27/06/2018, RUNAWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS ITO & RUNAWAL BUILDER P LTD VS ACIT IN ITA NO(S) 5408 & 5409/MUM/ 2016 RESPECTIVELY. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIE D ON THE RECENT DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS ARIHANT ESTATE PVT LTD I N ITA NO. 6037/MUM/2016 DATED 27.06.2018. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN MANGLA HOMES (P) LTD V. ITO [2 009] 182 TAXMAN 55/[2010] 325 ITR 281. 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE RATIO O F THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN MANGLA HOMES (P) LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ) IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE FA CTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID CASE I S NOT THE BUILDER LIKE THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE IN HAND. IN MANGLA HOMES (P) LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE VACANT FLATS AS STOCK IN TRADE, RATHER THEY WERE ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 4 ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LET OUT OF THE PROPERTIE S, WHICH WAS ONE OF THEIR OBJECT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUND OF APPEAL, IN ALTERNATIVE T O EACH OTHER. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO TREATING THE UNSOLD FLAT WHICH IS SHOWN AS STOCK IN TRADE, BY TREATING TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. DU RING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPL ETED TWO PROJECTS NAMELY NAZARENE AND SYMPHONY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNSOLD FLAT IN NAZARENE AT RS. 75,39,218/- AND IN SYMPH ONY AT RS.10,00,36,150/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REFERRI NG TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL H OUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) COMPUTED THE NOTIONAL ANNU AL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF THE UNSOLD FLATS AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIR MED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF CASE LAW RELIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN ANSAL HO USING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD (SUPRA). 8. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE I S IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED TWO PROJECTS NAMELY NAZARENE AND SYMPHONY. THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 5 UNSOLD FLAT IN NAZARENE AT RS. 75,39,218/- AND IN SYMPHONY AT RS.10,00,36,150/- AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE OFFERED BY ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEA D 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS'. THERE WERE CERTAIN UNSOLD FLATS IN STOCK IN TRADE WHICH THE AO TREATED AS PROPERTY ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND COMPUTED NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALU E ON SUCH UNSOLD FLATS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANS AL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA). THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSE E STRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN RUNAWAL CONSTRUC TIONS & RUNAWAL BUILDERS PVT LTD (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING ORD ER WAS PASSED; 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS, DEV ELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTION. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE CONSTRUCTED VARIOUS PROJEC TS AND THE PROJECTS WERE TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEES WERE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' . THERE WERE CERTAIN UNSOLD FLATS IN STOCK IN TRADE WHICH THE AO TREATED AS PROPERTY ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND COM PUTED NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE ON SUCH UNSOLD FLATS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) . THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NE HA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM ANY PROPERTY IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS CAN BE CLAIME D UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY' EVEN THOUGH THE SAID PROPERTY WAS IN CLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT OR TO CONS TRUCT AND LET OUT THE SAME, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS STOCKS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE STOCK I N TRADE AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH STOCKS CANNOT BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WHILE HOLDING SO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: - '8. TRUE IT IS, THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPER TY WOULD ALWAYS BE TERMED AS 'INCOME' FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT IF THE PR OPERTY IS USED AS 'STOCK- ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 6 IN-TRADE', THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WOULD BECOME OR P ARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE STOCK, AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE STOCK, W OULD BE 'INCOME' FROM THE BUSINESS, AND NOT INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT O R TO CONSTRUCT AND LET OUT THE SAME, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE 'BUSINESS' AND THE BUSINESS STOCKS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN T O BE 'STOCK-IN- TRADE', AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH STOCKS CAN NOT BE TERMED AS 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY'. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AND 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY' ON ONE SIDE, AND 'ANY INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. T HE TRIBUNAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WAS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED IN C OMPARING THE RENTAL INCOME WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON THE SHARES OR IN TEREST INCOME ON THE DEPOSITS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAI SED BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE TRIBUNALS AND, ALL OF SUDDEN, THE TRIBU NAL STARTED APPLYING THE ANALOGY. 9. FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD CLE ARLY APPEAR THAT IT WAS TREATING THE PROPERTY AS 'STOCK-IN-TRADE'. NOT ONLY THIS, IT WILL ALSO BE CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE GROUND FLOOR, WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT. IF THAT BE SO, THE PROPERTY, RIGHT FROM T HE BEGINNING WAS A 'STOCK- IN-TRADE' .' 9. SIMILARLY THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED SI MILAR ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE UNSOLD PROPERTY WHICH IS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ' BY NOTIONALLY COMPUTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE FROM SUCH PROPER TY AND THE COORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WH ICH THE AO RELIED UPON AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 373 ITR 673, HELD THAT UNSOLD FLATS WHICH ARE IN STOCK IN TRADE SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS INCOME' AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME FROM THOSE FLATS AND NOTIONALLY COMPUTING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. WHILE HOLDING SO THE COORDINATE BENCH OBSE RVED AS UNDER: - '3. THE LD. AR PLACED THE ORDER OF BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PERFECT SCALE COMPANY PVT. LTD., ITA NOS.3228 TO 32 34/MUM/2013, ORDER DATED 6-9-2013, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN R ESPECT OF ASSETS RUNWAL CONSTRUCTIONS & RUNWAL BUILDERS HELD AS BUSINESS, I NCOME FROM THE SAME IS NOT ASSESSABLE U/S.23(1) OF THE IT ACT . 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASIN G CO. LTD., 354 ITR 180 (DELHI) IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF UNSOLD FLATS BY THE DEVELOPER IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE FILE OF AO TO COMPUTE THE ANNUAL VALUE. RECENTLY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. V S. CIT, REPORTED IN (2015) 42 SCD 651, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 9-4-2015 HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF LETTING OUT PROPERTIES AND THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME , THE ACTION OF AO ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 7 TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY IN PLACE OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSES SEE COMPANY'S MAIN OBJECT, IS TO ACQUIRE AND HELD PROPERTIES AND TO LE T OUT THESE PROPERTIES, THE INCOME EARNED BY LETTING OUT THESE PROPERTIES IS MA IN OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, RENT RECEIVED FROM THE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ON THE VERY SAM E ANALOGY IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF CO NSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. THE THREE FLATS WHICH COULD NOT BE SOLD AT THE END OF THE YEA R WAS SHOWN AS STOCK-IN- TRADE. ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME BY THE AO FOR THESE THREE FLATS AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED INSOFAR AS TH ESE FLATS WERE NEITHER GIVEN ON RENT NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTION TO EAR N RENT BY LETTING OUT THE FLATS. THE FLATS NOT SOLD WAS ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE AN D INCOME ARISING ON ITS SALE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF AO FOR ESTIMATING RENTAL INCOME FROM THESE VACANT FLATS U/S.23 WHICH IS ASSESSEE'S STOCK IN TRADE AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY ESTIMATING LETTING VALUE OF THE FLATS U/S.23 OF THE I.T.ACT.' 10. IN THE CASE ON HAND BEFORE US IT IS AN UNDISPUT ED FACT THAT BOTH ASSESSEES HAVE TREATED THE UNSOLD FLATS AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE FLATS SOLD BY THEM WERE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'IN COME FROM BUSINESS'. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT THE UNSOLD FLATS WHICH ARE STOCK IN TRADE WHEN THEY WERE SOLD THEY A RE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' WHEN THEY ARE SOLD AND THEREFORE THE AO IS NOT CORRECT IN BRINGING TO TAX NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTING VALUE IN RESPECT OF THOSE UNSOLD FLATS UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM RUNWAL CON STRUCTIONS & RUNWAL BUILDERS HOUSE PROPERTY'. THUS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. FURTHER, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF RUNAWAL CONST RUCTIONS & RUNAWAL BUILDERS (SUPRA), IDENTICAL RELIEF WAS GRANTED IN A RIHANT ESTATE PVT LTD (SUPRA). COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, W HEN THE FATS ARE NOT AT VARIANCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE UNSOLD FLATS AS STOCK IN TRADE. 10. IN CIT VS ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD (SUPRA) THE HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT ALV OF UNSOLD FLAT BUIL T BY THE BUILDER IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY. HOWEV ER, THERE IS CONTRARY VIEW OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN NEHA BUILDERS (SUPRA) THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY WOULD ALWAYS BE TE RMED AS INCOME ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 8 FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS USED AS STOCK IN TRADE, THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WOULD BECOME OR PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE STOCK, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM THE STOCK, WOULD BE INCOME FR OM THE BUSINESS, AND NOT FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THE BUSINESS OF THE A SSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND TO SELL IT OR TO CONSTRUCT AND LET OUT THE SAME, THEN WOULD BE THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS STOCKS, MAY INCL UDED MOVEABLE OR IMMOVEABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE STOCK IN TRADE A ND ANY INCOME FROM SUCH STOCK CANNOT BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM PROPERT Y. THERE IS NO DIRECT DECISION ON THIS ISSUE BY JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT; THEREFORE, THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ADOPTED IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS VEGETABLE PRODUCT LTD. (88 ITR 192 SC). SUB-SECTION (5) IN SECTION 23 WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2017 W.E.F. 01.04.2018; THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLI CABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCH THE AND THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN NEHA BUI LDERS (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN BRINGING THE UNSOLD FLAT TO BRING IT UNDER INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. 12. IN THE RESULT THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS ALL OWED. ITA NO.5550/MUM/2016 VIJAY ENTERPRISES 9 13. CONSIDERING OUR FINDING ON GROUND NO.1, WHICH WE HA VE ALLOWED, THEREFORE, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME ACADEMIC. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2019. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 30/04/2019 SK-PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.