R.K.Investments, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 124/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0782 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NOS. 123 & 124/MDS/2013 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 297 & 298/MDS/2012) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2008-09 M/S R.K. INVESTMENTS, TEMPLE STEPS, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK IV, NO.184-187, ANNA SALAI, LITTLE MOUNT, CHENNAI - 600 015. PAN : AAAFR 3413 Q (PETITIONER) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD XV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SH.R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SH. GURU BASHY AM, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.08.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE, ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I A OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL, BUT, STILL IT HAD ADJUDICATED SUCH AN ISSUE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE , THE ONLY ISSUE WAS WHETHER LEASE RENTAL REALIZED FROM LETTING OUT OF T HE UNIT SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY. 2 M.P. NOS. 123 & 124/MDS/13 2. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ONLY AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80-IA FOR RENTAL RECE IPTS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS TRIBUNAL COMMITTED A MISTAKE WHEN IT REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO A.O. FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. LD. C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. ELNET TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED IN TC(A) NOS. 2335 AND 2 673 OF 2008 AND 2169 OF 2008 DATED 9.10.2012 WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THOUGH IT WAS RELIED ON BY HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. 3. PER CONTRA, SHRI GURU BASHYAM, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WHETHER RENTAL INCOME IS BUSINESS INCOME AND WHETHE R OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES COLLECTED WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA, ALONG WITH BUSINESS INCOME, WERE ALL INTRINS ICALLY CONNECTED TO THE NATURE OF LEASE AGREEMENT. LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE N OT PROPERLY ANALYSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS UNDER SU CH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NOTHING BARRED THE ASSESSE E FROM PRODUCING 3 M.P. NOS. 123 & 124/MDS/13 ANY CASE LAWS OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES, WHICH WOULD BA CK ITS PLEA. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 23 RD AUGUST, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 23 RD AUGUST, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE