YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5785/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0900 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P N DEVADASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S A MUKHADAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJA YARAGHAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 5785/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK, A/404, MEERA APT, JUHU VERSOVA, NEW LINK ROAD, SEVEN BUNGALOWS, VERSOVA, MUMBAI-400 061 PAN-AAQPK7413H VS. THE ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.A. MUKHADAM RESPONDENT BY SHRI P.N. DEVADASAN O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 8.7.200 8 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN ARCHITECT AND MANAGING DIRECT OR OF M/S. PRAJAKTA ENGG. & CONST. PVT. LTD. HE IS THE OWNER OF 3 FLATS NAMELY (1) A-404, MEERA APARTMENTS, ANDHDERI (W), (2) G-2 DATT AGURU SOCIETY, PANJIM, GOA AND (3) B-4, SAMUNDAR DARSHAN, FOUR BUN GALOWS, VERSOVA, MUMBAI. 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE LETTER DT. 22.11.200 7 AS UNDER:- YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 2 YOU ARE HOLDING 3 PROPERTIES BEING AT ANDHERI & AT GOA AND AIR INDIA CHS. WHY THE INCOME FROM 2 HOUSE PRO PERTY SHOULD NOT BE COMPUTED AS IF LET OUT U/S. 23(4). 4. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 6.12.2007 REPLIED A S UNDER: HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME :- IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME ISSUE WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD THE FOLLOWING POINTS FO R YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION:- PROPERTY NO.1: THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT FLAT NO.A- 404, MEERA APT., SEVEN BUNGALOWS, VERSOVA, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI. IT IS USED BY THEM FOR CARRYING THEIR COM PANYS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. PROPERTY NO.2: THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT G-2, DATTAGURU SOC., PANJIM, GOA ADMEASURING ONLY ABOUT 300 SQ.FEET. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED FOR CARRYING OUT HIS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AT GOA AND HAS BEEN USED AS GOA BRANCH OFFICE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED HAS ISSUED THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATE FOR USING THE PROPERTY FOR CARRYING OUT HIS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE COPY OF IT IS ENCLOS ED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT WHO CAN VE RY WELL CARRY OUT HIS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES FROM PREMISES WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AS PROFESSIONALS LIKE ARCHIT ECTS, DOCTORS & CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS DO NOT COME UNDER SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENT ACT AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY LI CENSE FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO CARRY ON THEIR PROFESSI ON FROM PREMISES WHICH IS IN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. FURTHER THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE CRUCIAL FACT THAT THOUGH THE ABOVE PROPERTIES LOCAT ED IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PROFES SIONAL PURPOSES AND HENCE NO INCOME WAS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS WAS ASSESSED U/S.22 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FORM HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ABOVE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN VARIOUS PREV IOUS BALANCE SHEETS AND RETURNS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE DEPARTMENT H AS ACCEPTED THE ABOVE FACT AND NOT EVEN AT ANY SINGLE TIME YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 3 HAVE THEY OBJECTED FOR NOT DISCLOSING ANY INCOME THEREFROM ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THIS FACT FURTHER SUBSTANTIATES THAT THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SUCH PROPERTIES ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BUT PROPERTIES USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRYING HIS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE PROFESSIONAL/COM MERCIAL IN NATURE. THIS FACT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE JUDG MENT OF TRIBUNAL, DELHI IN CASE OF ARJUN KAPPOR VS. DCIT (7 0 ITD 161). FURTHER, SEC.22 OF THE I.T. ACT CLEARLY DEALS WITH ANY INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN PROPERTY U SED FROM THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION) ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE DETAILS OF PROPERTY AS PER B-SHEET ARE AS UNDER :- FLAT NO.A-404 MEERA APT.-ANDHERI RS. 8,95,460/- US ED FOR RESIDENCE. FLAT NO.G-2-GOA RS. 1,42,947/- FLAT NO.17-A- AIR INDIA RS.13,50,251/- THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMING ANY DEPRECIATION ON TH E ABOVE PROPERTIES & ALL THE PROPERTIES ARE RESIDENTIAL PRO PERTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT EVIDENCE THAT THE RENTS OF 2 PROPERTIES ARE USED FOR HIS PROFESSION. FURTHER DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY PROFESSIONAL I NCOME EXCEPT A NOMINAL FEES OF RS.27,505/- FROM GORAL CHS MUMBAI. MERELY, BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE USED BY PROFESSIONAL OR A CERTIFICATE BY A SOCIETY THAT IT IS USE FOR PROFESSION IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE ASSESSEE MUST PR ODUCE MORE MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT PROPERTY IS USED FOR PROFESSION DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. THE SOCIETY CER TIFICATE DT.05.04.2004 FOR GOA PROPERTY THAT IT IS USED BY A SSESSEE FOR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR I.E.01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2005. YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 4 6. THE AO TREATED INCOME OF RS. 1,26,921/- AS INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IGNORING THE FACT OF COMMERCIAL HOUSE OF T HE TWO PREMISES. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE REST OF 2 PROPERTIES EXCLUDING HIS RESIDENTIAL FLAT WERE USED FOR HIS PROFESSION AND THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF OMPRAKASH & CO. MUMBAI TRIBUNAL (2 SOT 1) ESTIMATED THE ALV U/S. 23 (4) R.W. 23(1)(A) @8.5% OF THE TOTAL COST OF PROPERTY AND MADE AN ADD ITION OF RS. 1,26,921/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE ARG UMENTS PUT FORTH BEFORE THE AO. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO REJ ECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOU SE CAN BE USED FOR PROFESSIONAL AND A MERE CERTIFICATE BY THE SOCIETY THAT THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR PROFESSION IS NOT ADEQUATE. THE LD. CIT(A ) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OR SUBSTANTIAT ED HIS CLAIM AND ALSO HELD THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN ESTIMATING THE I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI P.N. DEVADASAN RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI S.A. MUKH ADAM PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE MUMBAI ITAT I BENCH ORDER IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 5 ITA NO. 2083/M/05 FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE AOS ACTION OF DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F ON THE REASONING THAT THE OTHER FLATS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RESIDENTIAL P ROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISO TO SEC. 54F (1). 12. THE TRIBUNAL HAD GONE INTO THE DETAILS WITH RES PECT TO USAGE OF THE PROPERTY AND HAVE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THE PRO PERTIES IN QUESTION HAVE YIELDED INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE THEREFORE SHALL R EPRODUCE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE INSTANT CA SE BEFORE US. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. AR FILED A PAPER BOOK DT. 16.5.2008. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE ARGUED THAT THE SAID THREE PROPERTIES WERE USED FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, THEY N EVER YIELDED PROPERTY INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON TH E SAID PROPERTIES THOUGH THEY WERE BEING USED FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ALSO A MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PECPO. HE ARGUED THAT THE STR UCTURE OF THE PROPERTY AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54F(1). USE O F THE PROPERTY AND THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE INCOME UNDE R THE HEAD ARE THE RELEVANT FACTORS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HE RELIED ON THE DELHI BENCH JUDGE MENT OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ARJUN KAPOOR FOR THE PROPO SITION THAT THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSES WHICH DISENTITLED THE ASSESSEE FROM GETTING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F SHOULD BE SUCH HOUSE, INCOME FROM WHICH IS CHARGEAB LE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN TH IS REGARD, THE LD. AR MENTIONED THAT THE SAID PROPERTI ES WERE NEVER ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERT Y. LD. DR FOR REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, HE HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54F AND MENTIONED THAT AS PER TH E SUB- CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A) TO THE PROVISO TO SEC. 54F (1), THAT YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 6 THE OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ITSELF DISENTITIES THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THE DEDUCTIO N U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS PAPE R BOOKS FILED BEFORE US. UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS CASE AR E THE OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND TH EY WERE NEVER ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO DEPRECI ATION WAS EVER CLAIMED ON THE SAID PROPERTIES. FURTHER, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F(1) READS A S UNDER:- PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTIO N SHALL APPLY WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE; (I) OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGI NAL ASSET; OR. THE ABOVE PROVISO CERTAINLY DISENTITLED THE ASSESSE E FROM CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION, WHO OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN NEW ASSE TS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. T HOUGH THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE OWNERSHIP OF ALL THE THR EE FLATS, THE DISPUTE IS RESTRICTED TO THE POINT WHETHER SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSES UNUSED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PURPO SES AND USED FOR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, DISENTITLES TH E ASSESSEE FROM CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F. WE HAVE PERUSED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ARJUN KAPOOR (SUPRA) AND FOUND THAT PARA 5.7 IS REL EVANT IN THIS REGARD. THE SAID PARA READS AS UNDER:- A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F AND SECTION 22 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE BENEFIT ALLOWABLE U/S.54F CAN BE DENIED ONLY IN A C ASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE OWNS MORE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROP ERTY OTHER THAN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY PURCH ASED OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WH ICH DEDUCTION U/S.54F HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH CAN DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 7 GETTING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F SHOULD BE SUCH A HOUSE, THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FLAT AT KHAN MARKET HAS UNDISPUTEDLY BEEN USED FOR OFFICE PREMISES OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SUCH A FLAT USED FOR ASSESS EES OWN BUSINESS CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX AS INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF SEC.22 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF S HARES HELD AS INVESTMENT WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN U TILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT DEFENCE COLONY , NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT DEDUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 13. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE BEING PR OFESSIONAL ARCHITECT THE PROPERTY AT SAMUNDAR DARSHAN, FOUR BU NGALOWS MUMBAI IS BEING USED FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY AS A BR ANCH OF THE ARCHITECT OFFICE AT MUMBAI. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE BEING AN A RCHITECT CAN CONTINUE HIS PROFESSION FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILDI NG WITHOUT GETTING PERMISSION UNDER SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT. THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 WERE SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES AND PASSED ORDER U/S. 143 (3) WHEREIN THE TWO PREMISES WHICH ARE USED FOR OFFICE PURPOSES WER E NOT TREATED AS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND NO DEEMED INCOME UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS CALCULATED THEREON. 14. IN THE CASE OF THE GOA PROPERTY, THE CERTIFICAT E OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CO-OPERATIVE HSG. SOC. CONFIRMS THE USE OF T HE PROPERTY FOR PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES. THE PROPERTY BEING USED FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSE WILL BE CHARGED UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. JUST B ECAUSE THE YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 8 ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT ON THE SAID PROPERTIES CANNOT CLASSIFIED FLATS AS NOT BUSINESS PROPERTIES. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF ARJUN KU MAR (SUPRA) CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PROPOSITION THAT THE INCOME FROM THE F LAT SHOULD BE SUCH THAT IT IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY. 15. IN THE CASE OF ARJUN KUMAR (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE PRINCIPLE THAT ARISES FROM THE SAID ORDER OF T HE DELHI BENCH TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE BENEFIT ALLOWABLE U/S.54F CANNOT BE DENIED WHEN THE HOUSES IN QUESTION, MAY B E RESIDENTIAL HOUSES IN CONSTRUCTION BUT THEY ARE USE D FOR PROFESSION AND SUCH PROFESSIONAL INCOME HAS THE CHA RACTER OF ASSESSABILITY UNDER THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROPERTIE S IN QUESTION HAVE NEVER YIELDED ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. OWIN G TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ASSESSEES PROFESSION OF ARCHITECTURE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAID PROPERTIES ARE USED FOR THE BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL P URPOSES AND THEY ARE NOT USED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUB-CLAUSE(I) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTI ON 54F(1), REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE PROVISO APPLIES TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE DISENTITLEMENT IS RESTRICTED TO IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSES, WHOSE INCOME IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS SEEN BY TH E CLAUSE (B) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F(1). THEREFORE, OWNERSHIP ASPECTS OF THE HOUSES REFERR ED TO IN CLAUSE(A)(I), OUGHT NOT TO IGNORE THEIR USAG E ASPECTS TOGETHER WITH THE CHARGEABILITY OF INCIDENTAL INCOM E IN RESPECT OF THOSE HOUSES. CLAUSE (B) OF THE PROVIS O IS VERY SPECIFIC IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE, WHOSE HOUSES ARE NEVER, YIELDED INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, IS OUT SIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54F(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FLATS WERE USED FOR P ROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SUCH FLAT USED FOR YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 9 ASSESSEES OWN BUSINESS/PROFESSION, CANNOT BE CHARG ED TO TAX AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 22 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE WE DELETE THE ADD ITION OF RS. 1,26,921/- AS THE PROPERTIES SHALL BE TREATED AS HA VING BEEN USED FOR PROFESSION AND NOT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (ASHA VI JAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH JULY, 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR G BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI YATINDRA SHANKAR KARNIK 10 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 22.7.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 23 . 7 .2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______