DCIT, Jaipur V. PARAS PARTEEK REAL ESTATE P LTD., Jaipur

ITA 660/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99551 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: G G MUNDRA

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 660 & 61/JP/13 DCIT, CIRCLE-2,JAIPUR VS.M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL EST ATE (P) LTD. 1 JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 660 /JP/13 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL ESTATE (P)LTD. GANPATI PLAZA M.I. ROAD, JIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCP 9340D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 661 /JP/13 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL ESTATE (P)LTD. GANPATI PLAZA M.I. ROAD, JIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCP 9340D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.G. MUNDRA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23 . 11.2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/11/2015. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO COMMON APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR OF EVEN DATE I. E. 06.05.2013 WHEREIN COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 660 & 61/JP/13 DCIT, CIRCLE-2,JAIPUR VS.M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL EST ATE (P) LTD. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SEPARATING THE HEADS OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALSO HOLDING THAT THE RECE IPT AGAINST HIRING OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES IN ASSESSABLE U/S 56(2)(II) INSTEAD OF 56(2)(III)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATT ER IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE B Y THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 (ITA NO. 415/JP/11 FOR A.Y. 2006-07) AND ORDER DATED 27.2.2015 (ITA NO.89/ JP/13) FOR A.Y. 2008-09. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE EARLIER DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE ITAT MAY BE FOLLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE SHOUL D BE DISMISSED. 2.1 THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 IN ITA NO.415/JP/13 HAS DECIDED THE APPE AL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IN LEASE DEED THE RENT FOR BUILDING AND RENT FOR FURNITURE AND F IXTURES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED SEPARATELY. IT IS NOT A COMPOSITE LEASE DEED. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS (SUPRA) IS NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED O FFICE PREMISES FOR LETTING IT OUT. LATER ON FACILITY OF AC AND OT HER FITTINGS WERE PROVIDED WHICH ARE EASILY BE SEPARABLE FROM OFFI CE PREMISES. ITA NO. 660 & 61/JP/13 DCIT, CIRCLE-2,JAIPUR VS.M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL EST ATE (P) LTD. 3 THE LEASE DEED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INTENTION OF TWO LETTINGS SEPARATELY AND FIXES SEPARATE LEASE RENT. HE RELIE D UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S HAMBHU INVETMENT P.LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (S.C). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF HE LEARNED C IT(A), THE SAME DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. SPE CIFIC AMOUNT FOR RENT FOR BUILDING AS WELL AS FURNITURE FIXTURE AND AC ARE PROVIDED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT. FITTINGS ARE SEPARABLE, W HICH CAN BE USED ANYWHERE ELSE ALSO. THE BUILDING CAN BE LET OUT W ITHOUT FURNITURE, WHICH WAS INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION CITED BY THE LD. AR IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE , THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 2.2 SUBSEQUENTLY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.89/ JP/13 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HAS FOLLOWED, THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2.3 RESPECTFULLY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND A .Y. 2008-09, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 660 & 61/JP/13 DCIT, CIRCLE-2,JAIPUR VS.M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL EST ATE (P) LTD. 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 /11/201 5. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH FOE FLAG ;KNO (R.P.TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 30/11 /2015 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT- M/S PARAS PRATEEK REAL ESTATE P. LTD. JAIPUR 3. THE CIT(A).I, JAIPUR 4. THE CIT-I JAIPUR 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO.660 7 661/JP/14) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR