ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY(P) LTD., Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 678/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5002 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A CIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: KRANTI MEHTA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Revised return
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. , ROAD NO. 6, VKI AREA JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 4(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AACCA 0142 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI KRANTI MEHTA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. ADDL. CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/10/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 /11/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 15-05-2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIPTS FROM LEASE CHAR GE OF BUILDING RS. 84,000/- WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 2 FROM OTHER SOURCES EVEN WHEN THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL WITH HIM TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS INCOME WHILE DOING SO, THE LD AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD NOT APPRECIATED T HE INTENTION / PRIME OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION (RS. 25,200) U/S 24(A) ON THE RENTAL INCOME CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 96,000/- EARNED BY T HE APPELLANT FROM LEASING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, ACCO RDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCCUPIER, IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM BUSINESS AS CLAIMED BY HIM. BECAUSE, WHILE D OING SO, THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE I NTENTION / PRIME OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,48,355.7 8 (AUDITORS REMUNERATION OF RS. 11,240/- , MISC.& OT HER EXPENSES RS. 9,732.50/-, RENT RATES & TAXES RS. 12, 087/-., BONUS RS. 7,200/-, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO ESI RS. 3,420, ROC FILING FEES RS. 900/-, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE RS. 25,609/-, SALARY RS. 42,000/-, POSTAGE AND TELEPHON E EXPENSES RS. 27,410/-, VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES RS. 57,758/-, ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES RS. 5,929/-, FINAN CIAL EXPENSES RS. 6,656.28/-,DEPRECIATION OF MOTOR CAR R S. 38,414/-) EVEN WHEN THESE ARE DISALLOWABLE EXPENDIT URES UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS SUFFIC IENT MATERIAL WITH HIM TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM. ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 3 5. THAT UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE MISC. INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES EVEN WHEN THIS INCOME WAS BUSINESS INCOME. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS AS NARRATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS O RDER IS AS UNDER:- DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, THE A.R. FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS 2 1800 SQ.FT LAND OUT OF WHICH 19800 SQ.FT WAS LET OUT AND REMAINING 2000 SQ.FT REMAINED VACANT. THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS . 9,34,887/- WAS RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT LAND AND B UILDING. FURTHER IT ALSO RECEIVED RS. 84,000/- AS A RENTAL I NCOME FROM LETTING OUT ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN, HAS SHOWN THE RENTAL INCOME FR OM LAND AND BUILDING UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 22 OF THE I.T. AC T AND THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY WAS CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THEREAFT ER IN ITS REVISED RETURN THE EXPENSES OF RS. 5,12,909/- RELAT ED TO LETTING OUT OF LAND AND BUILDING WAS DISALLOWED AT RS. 4,01,920/- AND CONSEQUENTLY TAX OF RS. 1,88,408/- W AS DEPOSITED. THEREAFTER LD. AO IN ITS ORDER DISALLOWE D RENTAL INCOME OF LAND AND BUILDING FOR RS. 84,000/- FROM T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ASSESSED IT UNDER TH E HEAD OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE EVEN DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS FURNISHED THE LEASE DEEDS. THEREFORE, T HE CONTENTION OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE RENTAL INCOME FROM LAND AND BUILDING UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES IS NOT CO RRECT AND HENCE YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE FACT S AND ALLOW THE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 4 OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE ANNU AL RENTAL VALUE U/S 23 CALCULATED BY THE AO ON THE BAS IS OF FACTS REVEALED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A AN D ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED OF DIRECTOR OF COMPANY WHEREIN CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSE E COMPANY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN IN SEPT. 1999, SINC E THEN THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY EXCEPT RENTAL INCOME, HENCE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GR OUND. GROUND NO. 2. THE AO HAD CONSIDERED THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 84,000/- UNDER THE HEAD OF OTHER SOUR CES AND HENCE THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) HAS BEEN CONSEQUENTLY DECREASED BY RS. 25,200/- FOR WHICH THE LD. AR PRAY ED FOR ALLOWANCE OF CONSEQUENTIAL DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) AMOU NTING TO RS. 25,200/- OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A): I HAVE CONSIDERED TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE DECI SION GIVEN IN GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT HENC E THE SAME IS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND THE ACTIO N OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ORAL SUBMISSION EXCEPT RELYING ON THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE BENCH WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 2.3 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 5 2.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE WAS CALCULATED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF FACTS REVEALED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CLOSED IN SEPT . 1999 AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EX CEPT RENTAL INCOME. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AD VANCED ANY SPECIFIC SUBMISSION AS TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ACTION OF TH E AO BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THE ISSUE OF LEASE CHARGE OF THE BUILDING IS T AXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT INCOME SHOULD BE CHARGED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIG HTLY RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT AS RENTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM NOT INCLINED TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED. THUS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 6 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACT S AND OBSERVATIONS AS NARRATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IS AS UN DER:- DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS TEMPORARY SUSPEN SION OF BUSINESS DUE TO HEAVY LOSSES INCURRED BY THE COMPAN Y AND AS A RESULT, IT HAS TO LET OUT ITS FACTORY LAND AND BU ILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINERY. HENCE, DURING THE YEAR, COMPAN Y EARNED RENTAL INCOME FROM LAND AND BUILDING AND PLA NT AND MACHINERY AND ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS INCOME. BUT THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 96,000/- FROM PLANT AND MACHIN ERY WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES BY THE LD AO. AS PER THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI HANU MAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIAL VS. CIT (266 ITR 106), CIT VS. N ORTHERN INDIA IRON &STEEL CO. LTD. (211 ITR 370), IT WAS HE LD THAT INCOME FROM LEASING OUT FACTORY AND BUILDING AND MA CHINERY DUE TO TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS WHICH IS DU E TO TIED OVER FINANCIAL CRISIS IS A BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT THE INCOME AND NOT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS FACT TH AT THIS SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS IS FOR TEMPORARY PHASE AND W E ARE AT THE VERGE OF COMMENCING ACTIVITY WAS WELL INFORMED TO THE LD. AO VIDE OUR REPLY DATED 9-01-2007 AT LAST PARA OF PAGE NO. 2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE RENTAL INCOME FROM P LANT AND MACHINERY UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) :-I HAVE CONSIDERED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE A/R COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE AO CLEARLY STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF S TATEMENT RECORDED OF DIRECTOR OF COMPANY WHEREIN HE CATEGORI CALLY ADMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN IN SEPT. 1999, SINCE THERE W AS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXCEPT RE NTAL ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 7 INCOME. HENCE, THERE IS NO BUSINESS RUN BY THE COMP ANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND INCOME FROM LEASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. THE AP PELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ORAL SUBMISSION EXCEPT RELYING ON THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE BENCH WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 3.3 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. 3.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASED OUT ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY AND EARNED THE R ENTAL INCOME OF RS. 96,000/- DUE TO CLOSE DOWN ITS BUSINESS SINCE S EPT. 1999 WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COM PANY. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER THAT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. WH EN THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAD CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS DUE TO LOSSES AND THERE WAS NO BU SINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXCEPT RENTAL INCOME THEN IT CANNO T BE CONSIDERED AS ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 8 BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS, I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED. THUS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 4.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS AS NARRATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IS AS UN DER:- THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. THE A.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE AO CLEARLY STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE STAT EMENT RECORDED OF DIRECTOR OF COMPANY WHEREIN HE CATEGORI CALLY ADMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN IN SEPT. 1999, SINCE THEN TH ERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXCEPT RENTAL INCOME. HENCE, ONCE THE BUSINESS INCOME TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE CLAIM OF EXPENSE IS HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUN D. 4.2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A) TOOK THE SUPPORT OF THE SAME CONTENTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS IN SEPT. 1999 AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EX CEPT THE RENTAL ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 9 INCOME . ONCE THE BUSINESS INCOME WAS TREATED AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE AO, THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD UNJUSTIFIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THUS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A). THUS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS AS NARRATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IS AS UN DER:- THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EARNED MISC. INCOME AT RS. 13,855/- WHICH WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS IN COME IN ITS ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REVISED RETURN. THEREAFT ER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASSESSED THE MISC. I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, THE A.R. FOR T HE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT AS PER COMPANIES ACT, COMP ANIES ARE REQUIRED TO PREPARE ITS FINANCIAL AS PER THE SC HEDULE VI. AS PER ITS REQUIREMENT THE INCOME WHICH ARE INCIDEN TAL AND ANCILLARY TO BUSINESS ARE SHOWN AS MISC. INCOME UND ER DIRECT INCOME WHEREAS AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 INCOME F ROM SOURCES MEANS WHICH IS NOT A BUSINESS INCOME. HENC E, MISC. EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. BUT THE LD. AO HAS NOT CO NSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS AND ASSESSED THE MISC. INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. HENCE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY C ONSIDER THE FACT AND ALLOW THE MISC. INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 10 OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) : I HAVE CONSIDERED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE. THE A.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THE AO CLEARLY STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF TH E STATEMENT RECORDED OF DIRECTOR OF COMPANY WHEREIN HE CATEGORI CALLY ADMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN IN SEPT. 1999, SINCE THERE W AS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXCEPT RE NTAL INCOME. HENCE, THERE IS NO BUSINESS RUN BY THE COMP ANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD MISC. INCOME IS HEREB Y SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 5.2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A) TOOK THE SUPPORT OF THE SAME CONTENTIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS IN SEPT. 1999 AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EX CEPT THE RENTAL INCOME. HENCE, WHEN THERE WAS NO BUSINESS RUN BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR THEN ADDITION MADE AO UNDER THE HEA D MISC. INCOME WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND I CONCUR WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ITA NO. 678/JP/2015 M/S. ALCO ENAMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 4(1), JAIPUR . 11 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 /11/ 2016. SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02 /11/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. ALCO ENAMMELLED WIRE MFG. COMPANY (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 4 (2) , JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 678/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR