M/s. Raj Syntex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5719/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69454 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH F FF F : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.5719/DEL/2011 5719/DEL/2011 5719/DEL/2011 5719/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07 0707 07 M/S RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., M/S RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., M/S RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., M/S RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., B BB B- -- -304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, 304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, 304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, 304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 065. 110 065. 110 065. 110 065. PAN : AACCR0961Q. PAN : AACCR0961Q. PAN : AACCR0961Q. PAN : AACCR0961Q. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -15(2), 15(2), 15(2), 15(2), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH YADAV, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 17 TH OCTOBER, 2011 FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY OF ` 2,52,349/- WHICH WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT ITS FACTORY BUILDING AT A MONTHLY RENT OF ` 1 LAKH. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INCOME FROM RENT OF THE FACTORY BUILDING UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON APPEAL, LEARNED C IT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND DIRECTED THAT THE INCOME FROM RENT SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HOWEVER, ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ITAT REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORED THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE ITAT SUSTAINED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INCOME FROM LETTING ITA-5719/DEL/2011 2 OUT OF THE FACTORY BUILDING IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO L EVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO ` 2,52,349/- DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THESE TWO HEADS. THE S AME IS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PVT.LTD. VS. CIT AND ANOTHER (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ALL THE PRIMARY FACTS RELATING TO THE NATURE OF THE INCOME RECEIVED BY IT. NOW, ON THOSE FACTS, IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION WHET HER THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF THE FACTORY BUILDING IS ASSESSABLE U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE WERE NO WRONG OR INCOMPLE TE FACTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT, HOLD THAT MERELY B ECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE HEAD UNDER WHICH INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE SAME UNDER SOME OTHER HEAD, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS EITHER CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSE E. WE, THEREFORE, CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 25.10.2013 VK. ITA-5719/DEL/2011 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S M/S M/S M/S RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., RAJ SYNTEX PVT.LTD., B BB B- -- -304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI 304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI 304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI 304, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 065. 110 065. 110 065. 110 065. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -15(2), NEW DELHI. 15(2), NEW DELHI. 15(2), NEW DELHI. 15(2), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR