PTL Enterprises Ltd, Ernakulam V. JtCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 651/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73800 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK C GOVIND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKAR AN, AM I.T.A. NOS. 650&651/COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., 6TH FLOOR, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-682 032. [PAN: AABCP 3839N] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4, KOCHI. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE-RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIVEK C. GOVIND, CA REVENUE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 02/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/01/2014 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-05-2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)I, KOCHI, AND T HEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE URGED IN THESE APPEALS IS THAT WH ETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM APOLLO TYRES LTD IS A SSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I.T.A. NOS. 650&651/COCH/2013 2 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS LEASED OUT ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY TO M /S. APOLLO TYRES LTD. IN APRIL, 1995 AND THE SAID LEASE AGREEMENT WAS RENEWE D FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY IT UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, UPHELD THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEF ORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE I MPUGNED ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THIS BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 03-04-2012, PASSED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I. T.A. NO. 659/COCH/2010 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 5. THE LD. DR FURNISHED A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTR ACT BELOW THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFU LLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE TH AT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AN INTENTION TO REVIVE ITS B USINESS ACTIVITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CON SIDERED EVERY YEAR ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THAT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS CANNOT HAVE BINDING EFFECT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR S. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY IN THE YEAR 1995. HENCE, WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE YEARS ENDING 31.3.1996 AND 31.3.97, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THA T THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO PRESENT INT ENTION TO REVIVE ITS BUSINESS AT APPROPRIATE TIME, AS THE GAP BETWEEN TH E YEAR OF CLOSURE AND THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THAT POINT OF TIME WAS VERY NARROW. HOWEVER, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 A ND WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING AS ON 31-03-2007. BY THAT I.T.A. NOS. 650&651/COCH/2013 3 DATE, ABOUT 12 YEARS HAVE PASSED AND HENCE WE ARE I N AGREEMENT WITH LD D.R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT IT HAS INTENTION TO REVIVE ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. T HOUGH THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT STEPS ARE BEING TAKEN TO REVIVE THE BUSINESS, YET WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT HIS CONTENTION FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS. A CCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CITED ABOVE, IN DECIDING THE IMPUGNED ISS UE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) . 7. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 03RD J ANUARY, 2014 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 3RD JANUARY, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. PTL ENTERPRISES LTD., 6TH FLOOR, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-682 032. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4, K OCHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN