The DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar V. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., Gandhinagar

MA 290/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3131 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR M.A. No: 290/AHD/2017 (in ITA No. 717/Ahd/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar V/S Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. 7 th Floor, Block No.12, New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar - 382010 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCS6704L Appellant by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Smt. Arti N. Shah, A.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 17 -06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24-08-2022 PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: The Revenue by way of this miscellaneous application is seeking to verify whether the income of ₹ 10,97,44,244.00 should be treated as business income or the income from other sources. M.A. No. 290/Ahd/2017 . A.Y. 2009-10 2 2. The assessee in the year under consideration has shown certain incomes in the nature of business and profession. The details of such income stands as under: i. Rent of residential building 82,74,981.00 ii. Miscellaneous receipt 9,9369,483.00 iii. Other interest 2,20,99780.00 Total 10,97,44,244.00 3. However, the AO was of the view that such income should be treated as income from the other sources for the reason that it has no connection with the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the same as income from other sources. However, on appeal the learned CIT-A held the same as income from the business. 4. Aggrieved, assessee also preferred an appeal to the ITAT in ITA No. 717/AHD/2014 which was disposed of by the ITAT vide order dated 21-12-2016 by holding the impugned receipts as income under the head business and profession. The ITAT while holding so has relied on the judgment of ITAT in the own case of the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. The relevant, finding of the ITAT reads as under: “17. An identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in I.TA No. 420/Ahd/2012 & C.O. 80/Ahd/2012 for A.Y, 2008-09 at para 7 & 8 of its order and the same reads as under:- 7. The Revenue's fourth and last substantive, ground seeks to treat assessee's income of Rs. 4,99,15,047/- comprising of rent of residential building of Rs. 67,67,288/-, miscellaneous receipt of Rs. 4,12,18,702/-, prior period adjustment of Rs. 19,28,992/- and interest on loan to staff of Rs. 65; respectively as other income from sources as against the CIT(A)'s order taking the same the business income. The assesses invites our attention to the tribunal's order in its own in assessment year 2006-07 decided on 28-02- 2014 that the same covers by the findings therein. Ld. departmental representative states that the four heads of income hereinabove are not covered from the said order. The assessee at this stage takes us to page 74 of the paper book to state that all the four items are squarely covered. We have also verified this aspect to find that these four heads have already been held to be income from business. There is no other distinction pointed out. We reject this fourth ground as well. Revenue's appeal ITA 420/Ahd/2012 is dismissed.” M.A. No. 290/Ahd/2017 . A.Y. 2009-10 3 5. From the above finding, we note that the ITAT after relying on the order of this tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It is also pertinent to note that the ITAT while adjudicating the issue for the assessment year 2008-09 has also made reference to the assessment year 2006-07 which can be verified from the order of the ITAT reproduced above. In view of the above, there remains no ambiguity that the above incomes have been treated by the ITAT in the own case of the assessee as business income. Thus the question of the revenue in the MA filed by it to enquire whether the aforesaid incomes were classified under the head business and profession or income from other sources is not sustainable. Hence the MA filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the misc. application filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 24 - 08- 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 24/08/2022 True Copy S. K. Sinha Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT, Ahmedabad