ITO 3(1)(2), MUMBAI V. BRINDABAN BUILDERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 630/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2898 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL K RAMNI; VINAY SINHA LD ARS
• Keywords: Business income; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.630/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1)(2) ROOM NO.666, 6 TH FLOOR M.K. ROAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. BR INDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD 4 TH FLOOR, RAHEJA CORNER OF MAIN AVENUE OF N.P.ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI-400 049 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACB-1815-B ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.631/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) INCOME TAX OFFICE R - 3(1)(2) ROOM NO.666, 6 TH FLOOR M.K. ROAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD 4 TH FLOOR, RAHEJA CORNER OF MAIN AVENUE OF N.P.ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI-400 049 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACB-1815-B ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.633/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1)(2) ROOM NO.666, 6 TH FLOOR M.K. ROAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD 4 TH FLOOR, RAHEJA CORNER OF MAIN AVENUE OF N.P.ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI-400 049 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACB-1815-B ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 2 ASSESSEE BY : SUNIL K. RAMNI & VINAY SINHA, LD. ARS REVENUE BY : D.G. PANSARI, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/10/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/11/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S [AY] 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 AGITATE THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE DIS POSE-OFF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE & BREVITY. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 630/MUM/2017 WHICH CONTEST THE O RDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20 [CIT(A)], M UMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-20/ITO-12(1)(3)/IT-09/2015-16 DATED 28/10/2016 BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.69,93,703/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY DETERMINING THE ANN UAL VALUE OF THE OFFICE PREMISES SITUATED AT RAHEJA CENTRE, NRIMAN POINT AT RS.1,23,19,210/- U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.63,93,703/ - RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S.23(1)(A) WAS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE I TAT FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.63,93,703/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD ELABORATELY BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS A T PARA 5.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR INSTANT YEAR WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY STATE D THAT THE FACTS IN THE CAST OF ASSESSEE INVOLVED FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND THEREFORE ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 3 DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT FOR A.Y.2008-09 CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION?. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REST ORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(3), MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 10/03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.64.33 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS A S AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.0.36 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25/ 09/2009 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) . DURING IMPUGNED AY, THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ENTITY WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 31/03/2014. 2. DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE OWNED OFFICE PREMISES HAVING CARPET AREA OF 4280 SQUARE FEETS SITUATED AT 1205-1208, RAHEJA CHAMBERS PREMISES COOP. SOC. LTD. , NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR USE OF THE SAID OFFICE PREMISES AS RS.7.50 LACS AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE SAID COMPENSATION WAS STATED TO BE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF USAGE OF OFFICE PREMISES, OFFICE EQUIPMENTS, GARDEN AREA, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, STAFF SALARY ETC . FROM ITS GROUP CONCERNS NAMELY M/S SEASIDE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, M/S GLOBUS STORES PRIVATE LIMITED & M/S OUTLOOK PUBLISHING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THESE CONCERNS AND THE ASSESSEE MERELY RECOVERED COST OF SERVICES AND ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 4 AMENITIES FROM THE GROUP CONCERNS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY RENT FOR USE OF OFFICE PREMISES. THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PR EMISES WAS ESTIMATED BY LD. AO AS RS.91.33 LACS, THE COMPUTATION OF WHIC H HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 5.7 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DEFEN DED THE SAME, INTER-ALIA, BY SUBMITTING THAT THE PARTIES WERE NOT ALLOTTED AN Y FIXED AREA AND ONLY A PART OF THE PREMISES WAS BEING USED BY THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS WHEREAS BALANCE AREA WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE, CHARGING NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME AGAINST THE ENTIRE AREA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ATTENTION WAS DR AWN TO THE FAVORABLE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 200 8-09. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. AO, DISTINGUISHING THE ISSUES OF AY 2008-09, ADDED NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER PROVIDING ALLOWANCE FOR STATUTORY DEDUCTION @30% U/ S 24(A). 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/10/2016 WHE REIN LD. CIT(A), RELYING UPON TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR AY 2008-09, CONCL UDED THE MATTER IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSI ONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEA L IS WHETHER THE INCOME FROM LETTING OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINE SS INCOME OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ISSUE AT HAND IS A R ECURRING ONE WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE HONB LE ITAT MUMBAI B BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 03-10-2012 IN THE ITA NO.6902/MUM/2011. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHILE ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE HAD N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN LETTING OF PREMISES WITH RENDERING OF SE RVICES AND FACILITIES AND THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCH THAT THE LETTING OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE ITA T THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ONLY FROM LETTING OUT, BUT IT IS BECAUSE OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES RENDERED AND SO SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD B USINESS INCOME. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO A.Y. 200 8-09, IT IS NOTED THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION AND RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 2008-09 THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 5 SUSTAINED IN APPEAL AND ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 7 OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND PERUSED. T HE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR RESTS ON THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE, BEING RECU RRING IN NATURE, HAS ALREADY BEEN DELVED UPON AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEES FAVOR IN OTHER AYS, THE COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN P LACED ON RECORD. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE STAND OF LD. AO TO CON TEND THAT THE RELIANCE UPON TRIBUNALS DECISION ON OTHER YEAR S WAS MISPLACED. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT ISSUE H AS ALREADY BEEN DELVED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS OTHER AYS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- UPON PERUSAL OF LATEST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO S.2953-54/MUM/2016 DATED 28/02/2018, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE WAS UNDE R APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH IDENTICAL / SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL, RELYING UPON THE ORD ERS FOR EARLIER YEARS, CONCURRED WITH ASSESSEES STAND BY OBSERVING AS UND ER:- 5.1 NOTABLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER PARAS 5 .1 AND 5.2, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS PROVIDIN G VARIED NATURE OF SERVICES AND AMENITIES, SUCH AS ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, SECURITY , GARDEN MAINTENANCE, OFFICE MAINTENANCE, STAFF SERVICES, ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE USE OF OFFICE PREMISES ALLOWED TO THREE OF ITS GROUP CONCERNS NAMELY M/S. SEA VIEW DE VELOPERS, M/S. OUTLOOK PUBLISHING(I) P LTD. AND M/S. GOKUL CONSTRUCTION CO . PVT. LTD. THE SAID FACTUAL OBSERVATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE USE OF THE PREMISES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT AS A TENANCY SIMPLICITER BUT FOR COMPOSITE SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDED USE OF PREMISES. BE THAT A S IT MAY, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03/10/2012(SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN RE LIED UPON BY THE CIT(A), NO. APPEAL NO. ORDER DATED AY 1. ITA NO. 2953-54/MUM/2016 28/02/2018 2005-06, 200 6-07 2. ITA NO. 3453/MUM/2017 09/10/2017 2007-08 3. ITA NO. 6902/MUM/2011 03/10/2012 2008-09 ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 6 CONTINUES TO HOLD THE FIELD, INASMUCH AS, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED BY ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY. THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, WHICH IS RELEVANT:- 5.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL BEFORE US. IN ORDER TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE ACT, THE CONDIT IONS TO BE SATISFIED ARE (A) THE PROPERTY SHOULD CONSIST OF BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPUR TENANT THERETO; (B) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE THE OWNER; (C) THE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE USED BY THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM THE PROFI TS OF WHICH ARE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER RENT IS A SSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM PROPERTY OR BUSINESS INCOME, WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE ASSET IS BEING EXPLOITED COMMERCIALLY BY THE LETTING OUT OR WHETHE R IT IS BEING LET OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENJOYING THE RENT. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE T WO IS A NARROW ONE AND HAS TO DEPEND ON CERTAIN FACTS PECULIAR TO EACH CASE. THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR LETTING IS BUSINESS HAS TO BE DECIDED IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF EACH CASE AND IN THE SETTING AND BACKGROUND OF FACTS. THERE IS NO SUCH T HING AS A NATURAL COMMERCIAL ASSET, BECAUSE AN ASSET BECOMES A COMMERCIAL ASSET BY THE USE TO WHICH IT IS PUT IN BUSINESS AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANY INHERENT QUALITIES. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS BEING ASSE SSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS. PROPERTY-IN-QUESTION , RENTED AMENITIES LIKE OFFICE EQUIPMENT & AIR CONDITIONER AND FOR PROVIDING CLEAN ING & SECURITY SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LETTING OUT WERE THE SAME AS OF T HE EARLIER AYS.AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING NEW ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS SOME THING SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. 5.1.IN OUR OPINION, WHERE THE INCOME RECEIVED IS NO T FROM THE BARE LETTING OF THE TENEMENT OR FROM THE LETTING ACCOMPANIED BY INCIDEN TAL SERVICES OR FACILITIES, BUT THE SUBJECT HIRED OUT IS A COMPLEX ONE AND THE INCOME O BTAINED IS NOT SO MUCH BECAUSE OF THE BARE LETTING OF THE TENEMENT BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACILITIES AND SERVICES RENDERED, THE OPERATIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH LETTING O F THE PROPERTY IS OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR TRADING OPERATIONS AND THE INCOME DERIV ED IS OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR TRADING OPERATIONS. AS THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT ONLY FROM LETTING OUT, BUT IT IS BECAUSE OF FACILITIES A ND SERVICES RENDERED, AS DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH 5,SO IN OUR OPINION SAME SHOULD BE ASSESS ED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF KARNANI PROPERTI ES(SUPRA),GROUNDS NO.1-8 ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY 6. QUITE CLEARLY, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO A FINDING TH AT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FROM LETTING OF THE TENEMENT OR FR OM THE LETTING ACCOMPANIED BY INCIDENTAL SERVICES OR FACILITIES, BUT THE SUBJECT HIRING WAS A COMPLEX ONE AND THE INCOME OBTAINED WAS MORE FOR FACILITIES AND SERVICE S PROVIDED, THEREFORE, IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE INCOME DERIVED THERE-FROM IS IN TH E NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ALSO THE T RIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 3453/MUM/2017 & CO.NO.203/MUM/2017 DATED 09/10/ 2017 HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT OF HIRING INCOME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS , FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03/10/2012(SUPRA). 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, A STATEMENT WAS ALSO MAD E AT BAR THAT RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1985-86 AND UPTO 2004-05, SIMILAR INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO BE ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. FOR THE SAID REASON AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDENTS NOTED ABOVE, WHICH CONTIN UE TO HOLD THE FIELD, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN TREATING THE HIRING I NCOME EARNED FROM THE OFFICE ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 7 PREMISES SITUATED AT RAHEJA CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT , MUMBAI AS BUSINESS INCOME. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT REVENUE HAS TO FAIL. 8. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY REFER TO SOME OF THE POIN TS AGITATED BY THE REVENUE IN THE AFORE-NOTED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FIRSTLY, IT IS CANVA SSED THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED FOR 2008-09 ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE I NSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND A REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE DISCUSSION IN PARA 5.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAME AND FIND THAT THERE ARE NO DISTING UISHABLE FEATURES, INASMUCH AS, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE USE OF PROPERTY AT RAHEJA CHAMBERS IS ONE AND THE SAME IN BOTH THE YEARS. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ALSO, WHAT WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT WAS THE I NCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LEASING OF THE OFFICE PREMISES IN RAH EJA CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, WHICH IS THE POSITION IN THIS YEAR TOO. AS IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IN THIS YEAR TOO THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM THE LEASING A S BUSINESS INCOME, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIFFERED AND ASSESSED IT AS INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO UPHOLD THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AS MANIFESTED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8.1 CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT (A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL WORDE D GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THEREFORE, SINCE A VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE CONFIRM THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 631 & 633/MUM/2017, AYS 2012-13, 2013-14 6. IN BOTH THESE YEARS, THE REVENUE IS SIMILARLY AG GRIEVED AND IS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US WITH IDENTICAL WORDED GROUNDS OF A PPEAL. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING PARI-MATERIA THE SAME, TAKING THE SAME VIEW, WE DISMISS BOTH THESE APPEALS ALSO. CONCLUSION 7. ALL THE APPEALS STANDS DISMISSED. ITA.NOS.630,631 & 633/MUM/2017 BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS-2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH/JV,SR.PS / 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