Smt Taramoni Jalan, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 886/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5137 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VARSHA JALAN

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 SMT. TARAMONI JALAN,............................... .....................APPELLANT 514, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 005 [PAN : AFFPJ 2764 Q] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ......................RESPONDENT WARD-42(1), KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SMT. VARSHA JALAN, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI NILOY BARAN SOM, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPAR TMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 15, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 06, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIII, KOLKATA DATED 25.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IS PROJECTED IN THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED THEREIN AS UNDER:- THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT (A)-13 ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITO, WARD-42(1) IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME OF RS.92,129/- TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY FOR LETTING OUT 350 SQ.FT. OF TERRACE SPA CE AND DISALLOWING DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S 24 OF THE I.T. A CT ON SUCH RENTAL INCOME. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O N 17.03.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,21,720/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 7 PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.92,129/- FROM DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED FOR ALLOWING TO USE THE ROOF OF HER HOUSE FOR INSTALLATION OF TO WER AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS DECLARED IN THE RETURN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER CLAIMING STANDARD DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKHERJEE ESTATE PVT. LIMITED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 244 ITR 1 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDING LY THE STANDARD DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSEESSEE UNDER SECTION 24 WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 06.07.2010. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION RECEIVED FROM DISHNET CO . LIMITED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREBY DISAL LOWING HER CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24. AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKHERJEE ESTATE PVT. LIM ITED (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF JMD REALTORS (P) LIMITED VS.- DCIT [22 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 654, HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE AMO UNT IN QUESTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. DISHNET CO. LIMI TED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THEREBY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 7 SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIAGARA HOTELS & BU ILDERS (P) LIMITED VS.- CIT (I.T. APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2014 DATED MARCH 25 , 2015) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MANPREET SINGH VS.- ITO (ITA NO. 3976/DEL./2013 DATED 06.01.2015) , WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKHERJEE ESTATE PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA), WHICH IS RELIED UPON B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, INVITED MY ATTE NTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT TO POINT OUT TH AT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDING OR LAND APPURTE NANT THERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXP RESSION BUILDINGS USED IN SECTION 22 IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED, IT ENVISAGES A HOLISTIC STRUCTURE AND TERRACE, WHICH IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE ON RENT IN THE PRESENT CASE, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BUILDINGS, ALTH OUGH THE SAME MAY BE A PART OF A BUILDING. HE, THEREFORE, STRONGLY SUPPO RTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TERRACE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN DELHI IN THE CASE OF MANPREET SINGH (SU PRA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR USE OF TERRACE BY BHARATI AIRTEL LIMITED AND IDEA C ELLULAR LIMITED FOR INSTALLATION OF MOBILE TOWER WAS HELD TO BE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 4 OF 7 OF MUKHERJEE ESTATE PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA), WHICH IS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN T HEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT, WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS AND THE F INDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CONTEXT IN PARAGRAPHS NO. 6 TO 8 OF ITS ORDER ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 6. WE FIND THAT SECTION 22 OF THE ACT PROVIDES TH AT ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONSISTING OF A BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENA NT THERETO OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSE IS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BUT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED TH E TAXABILITY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ONLY ON THE GROUND THA T THE RENT IN QUESTION IS NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY PART OF THE BUILDING BUT FOR AN UNRELATED ATTACHMENT, I.E. MOBILE ANTENNA, TO THE ROOF. IT IS THUS CONTENDED T HAT THE RENTAL INCOME IN QUESTION CAN ONLY BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES, I.E. RESIDUARY HEAD. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE, THE RENT IN QUESTION CANNOT FORM PART OF THE ANNUAL VALUE AS IT IS SINE QUA NON FOR ITS SUCH INCLUSION THAT THE RENT MUST BE FOR THE PROPERTY O R ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY, WHEREAS THE RENT IN QUESTION IS NOT FOR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY BUT AN UNRELATED ATTACHMENT TO THE ROOF OR TERRACE. THE R EVENUE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS CHANGE OF HEAD LIE IN THE FACT THAT WHEREAS AN INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR STANDARD DEDUCTION, UNDER SECTION 24(A ), @ 30% OF THE ANNUAL VALUE, THE TAXABILITY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH A DEDUCTION. THE BASI S ON WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THAT TAXABILITY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES AND THUS REJECT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A), IS HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKERJEE ESTATES PVT LTD VS. CIT [244 ITR 1 (2000)]. 7. WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MUKERJEE ESTATES PVT LTD (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, IT IS WHOLLY MISPLACED INASMUCH AS IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH THE TR IBUNAL HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT THE HOARDINGS AND IN WHICH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE HAD LET OUT THE ROOF FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND HOARDING REMAINED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED INASMUCH AS WHEN A QUERY WAS PUT TO HIM (I.E. THE ASSESSEE) WHETHER THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO THIS EFFECT TO CONCLUDE WHETHER THE HOARDING WAS LET OUT OR THE ROOF IS LET OUT , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THAT AGREEMENT NOR THERE IS (WAS) ANY REFERENCE TO SUCH AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: .THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF THE TRIBU NAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE HOARDING, THESE A RE NEITHER PART OF THE BUILDING NOR LAND APPURTENANT T HERETO. THEREFORE, PERMITTING SOME COMPANIES TO DISPLAY THE IR BOARDS ON HOARDINGS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY AS HOARDINGS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS PART OF THE BUILDING. I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 5 OF 7 8. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS THUS CLEARLY IN ERROR IN OBS ERVING, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE RENT IS ON LY FOR FIXING THE HOARDING, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS PART O F THE BUILDING, NOR COULD IT BE TREATED AS LAND APPURTENANT THERETO, TH EREFORE SUCH INCOME WILL HAVE TO BE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED AS INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES (EMPHASIS BY UNDERLINING SUPPLIED BY US) . AS IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE FROM THE EXTRACTS FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THEIR LO RDSHIPS OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, THE RENT WAS TAKEN AS RENT FOR HOARDING S PER SE RATHER THAN RIGHTS ON THE ROOF WHERE HOARDINGS COULD BE INSTALLED OR, AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) PUTS IT, FIXED. THERE WAS A CATEGORICAL FINDING TO THAT EF FECT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AND THIS FINDING REMAINED UNCONTRO VERTED BEFORE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL. IT WAS BASED ON THIS U NCONTROVERTED FINDING THAT HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. T HIS DECISION, THEREFORE, CANNOT EVEN BE AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THA T THE INCOME FROM RENTING OUT THE ROOF FOR PLACING THE HOARDINGS CAN BE TREAT ED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY TO THIS INTERPRETATI ON, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS DECISION UNAMBIGUOUSLY SHOW THAT WHEN IT CAN B E DEMONSTRATED, AS THEIR LORDSHIPS WANTED THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE IN THA T CASE, THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS RENT FOR LETTING OUT THE ROOF RATHER THAN THE HOARDINGS, THE LEGAL POSITION WILL BE MATERIALLY DI FFERENT. SUCH BEING THE CORRECT POSITION, IT IS CERTAINLY STRETCHING THE TH INGS A BIT TOO FAR TO SUGGEST THAT RENT FOR ROOF, FOR INSTALLATION OF MOBILE ANTENNAS, CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. LEARNED CIT(A)S OBSERVATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT ON THE SAME ANALOGY, RENT FROM THE INSTALLATION OF MOBILE ANTENNAE WHICH HAS BEEN ERECTED ON THE TOP AT THE B UILDING WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROPERTY AS THE RENT WAS ONLY FOR PROVIDING SPACE FOR INSTALLATION OF TH E MOBILE ANTENNAE ON THE TOP OF BUILDING, AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TREA TED AS PART OF THE BUILDING NOR CAN IT BE TREATED AS LAND APPURTENANT THERETO IS A CLASSIC CASE OF FALLACIOUS LOGIC. ONCE LEARNED CIT(A) AGREE S THAT RENT WAS ONLY FOR PROVIDING SPACE FOR INSTALLATION OF THE MOBILE ANTE NNA, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANTENNA WILL BE A PART OF A BUILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AS THE TRUE TEST IS WHETHER SUC H A SPACE, AS HAS BEEN RENTED OUT, IS PART OF THE BUILDING OR LAND APPURTE NANT THERETO. THE RENT IS NOT FOR THE ANTENNA BUT FOR THE SPACE FOR INSTALLATION OF ANTENNA. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RENT IS FOR THE A NTENNA, AND, THEREFORE, IT IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT WHETHER ANTENNA IS PART OF THE BU ILDING OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE SPACE WHICH HAS BE EN RENTED OUT AND, THEREFORE, AS LONG AS THE SPACE, WHICH HAS BEEN RENTED OUT, IS PART OF THE BUILDING, THE RENT IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF LEAVES AND LICENCE AGREEMENTS WITH THE BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND THE IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED. IN BO TH OF THESE AGREEMENTS, IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE RENT IS FOR USE OF ROOF AND TERRACE AREA (NOT MORE THAN 900 SQ FT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AIRTEL LT D AND APPROX 800 SQ FT IN THE CASE OF IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED). THE AGREEMENT WITH BHARTI AIRTEL LTD MENTIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE PERMITS THE LICENCES TO INSTALL, ESTABLISH, MAINTAI N AND WORK ON THE LICENCED PREMISES, INTER ALIA, INCL UDING THE FOLLOWING (A) TRANSMISSION TOWER/POLE, WITH MULTIPLE ANTENN AS; (B) PRE- FABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER; (C) D G SET UPTO 25 K VA: AND (D) TWO EARTHING CONNECTION AND LAYING OF OTHER CABLES TO G ROUND AN ONE LIGHTNING ARRESTOR, NECESSARY CABLING AND CONNECTIN G TO EACH I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 6 OF 7 ANTENNA/ EQUIPMENT, AND SPACE FOR INSTALLATION OF E LECTRICITY METER AND POWER CONNECTIVITY ETC . SIMILARLY, AGREEMENT WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD, INTER ALIA, STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE GIVES PERMISSI ON AND LICENCE TO USE AND OCCUPY A PORTION ADMEASURING APPROX. 800 SQ FT TERR ACE AND ROOF AREA FOR INSTALLATION OF PREFABRICATED TEMPORARY AS SEMBLED AIR CONDITIONED SHELTER, TOWER/ANTENNA POLES AND SUCH O THER EQUIPMENT AS MAY BE NECESSARY . ALL THESE INSTALLATIONS ARE TO BE DONE BY THE RE LATED COMPANIES AND THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT EXTEND BEYOND PERMITTING USE OF SPACE FOR SUCH INSTALLATIONS. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE RENT IS FOR SPACE TO HOST THE ANTENNAS AND NOT FOR THE ANTENNAS . AS LONG AS THE RENT IS FOR THE SPACE, TERRACE AND ROOF SPACE IN THIS CASE AND WHICH SPACE IS CERTAINLY A PART OF THE BUILDING, THE RENT CAN ONLY BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. EVEN IN THE CASE OF NIAGARA HOTELS & BUILDERS (P ) LIMITED (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSU E INVOLVED WAS WHETHER THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING TOP TE RRACE OF HIS HOUSE PROPERTY FOR INSTALLING SPACE ANTENNA IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKHERJEE ESTATE PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT TH E AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COU RT THAT THE TERRACE FLOOR CANNOT EXIST IN THE AIR AND IT IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THE BUILDING, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND BENEATH TO S UPER STRUCTURE. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIAGARA HOTELS & BUILDERS (P) LIMITED AS WE LL AS THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F MANPREET SINGH (SUPRA), WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE FROM M/S. DISHNET CO. LIMITED FOR USE OF TERRACE OF THE ASSES SEES HOUSE PROPERTY FOR INSTALLATION OF TOWER IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. I, ACCO RDINGLY, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX I N THE HANDS OF THE I.T.A. NO. 886/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 7 OF 7 ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT, AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 6, 2 016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 6 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SMT. TARAMONI JALAN, 514, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 005 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-42(1), KOLKATA, (NEW ITO, WARD-43(1), KOLKATA) , 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-13, KOLKA TA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.