ITO 16(2)(3), MUMBAI V. KESHAVLAL BULAKHIDAS & OTHERS, MUMBAI

ITA 8283/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9439 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DHIRENDRA M SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.8283/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO 16(2)(3), MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI. KESHAVLAL BULAKHIDAS & OTHERS, 29, 4 TH FLOOR, SEA CASTLE, CHOWPATTY SEA FACE, MUMBAI-07. PA NO.AAFFK 0151 R (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI DHIRENDRA M SHAH DATE OF HEARING: 21.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 5 . 12.2012 ORDER PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST ORDER DATED 7.9.2011 OF LD CIT(A). 2. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 READ AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE INC OME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OUT THE TERRACE SPACE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND T EMPORARY INSTALLATION OF ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT OF CELLULAR MOBILE TELECOMMUN ICATION SYSTEM AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE A. 0. TO TREAT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE AO IN HIS A SSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY GIVEN THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION THAT NO KIND OF RIGHT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE LICENSEE AND FURTHER THE LICENSEE HA S MADE PAYMENT AS UNDER THE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT AND NOT UNDER RENT?. ITA NO.8283/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 3 STATED THAT SAID ITEM OF RS.50,000 IS DULY REFLECTE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. CONSIDERING ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FACTS ON RECORD BROU GHT BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND NO.3 OF AP PEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DECEMBER, 2012 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 5 TH DECEMBER, 2012 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),27, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-16 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH A MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI