RAMGOPAL & SONS, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 654/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1814 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIPAK KUMAR SINHA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI .. , ! ' #. $.. % , & ', ' BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND DR.T.M.PAVALAN, JM ITA NOS.654 & 655/MUM/2012 : A.YS 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.RAMGOPAL & SONS 701 TULSIANI CHAMBERS FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AAAFR8368Q. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(3)(3) MUMBAI. ( () / // / APPELLANT) % % % % / VS. ( +,()/ RESPONDENT) () - -- - . . . . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P.BAIRAGRA +,() - . - . - . - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DIPAK KUMAR SINHA % - /! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2013 012 - /! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2013 ' 3 ' 3 ' 3 ' 3 / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL (AM) : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2007-2008 AND 2008-2009. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS ABO UT THE TREATMENT OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OUT O F HOUSE PROPERTY. AS BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.654 & 655/MUM/2012. M/S.RAMGOPAL & SONS. 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE LET OUT ITS OFFICE PREMISES SITUATED AT 803-804 TULSIANI CH AMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI TO M/S.S.S.KANTILAL ISHWARLAL SEC PV T. LTD. VIDE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 14.08.2006. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2006-2007, CAME TO HOLD THAT T HE INCOME SO RECEIVED WAS TO BE TAXED AS `BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS `INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING THE INCOME AS `BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF `INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO.6828/ MUM/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 24.02.2012, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME A S FALLING UNDER THE HEAD `INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. NO DISTINGUI SHING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS --VIS THE YEAR DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. RATHER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEALS UNDER CO NSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY INSTEAD OF `BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTE D TO ALLOW ITA NOS.654 & 655/MUM/2012. M/S.RAMGOPAL & SONS. 3 DEDUCTION U/S 24 AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 05 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. ' 3 - 012 4'%5 1 - 6 SD/- SD/- (DR.T.M.PAVALAN) (R.S.SYAL) & ' & ' & ' & ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 4'% DATED : 05 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. DEVDAS* ' 3 - +&/78 9 82/ ' 3 - +&/78 9 82/ ' 3 - +&/78 9 82/ ' 3 - +&/78 9 82// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. () / THE APPELLANT 2. +,() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : () / THE CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT 5. 8=6 +&/&% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 > / GUARD FILE. ' 3% ' 3% ' 3% ' 3% / BY ORDER, ,8/ +&/ //TRUE COPY// ? ? ? ?/ // /@ A @ A @ A @ A ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI