9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Treatment of rental income as income from other sources instead of income from house property. Analysis: The appellant, a company, leased a property in Pune and sublet it to other parties, showing the rent received as income from house property. However, the assessing officer treated the income as from other sources. The appellant argued that they should be deemed the owner of the property under section 27(iiib) due to the lease agreements granting them complete rights over the property. The appellant cited various case laws to support their claim, emphasizing their control and domain over the property. The Department argued that the appellant only had a leasehold right and could not be considered the owner of the property. They highlighted the absence of a clause for extending the lease agreement beyond 7 1/2 years. The Department contended that each assessment year is independent, and past treatment by the assessing officer does not bind future assessments. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the leased property consisted of land with structures but no mention of buildings. The nature of the property raised a question of whether it could be considered as house property under section 22. The appellant's inability to clarify led to a decision to send the matter back to the assessing officer for further examination. The tribunal noted that for the appellant to be deemed the owner under section 27(iiib), the property in question should involve a building or part thereof. As the property was identified as land with structures but no buildings, a conclusive decision on the income source was deferred. The tribunal criticized the lack of attention by the assessing officer in subsequent years and directed a fresh examination of the property to determine the appropriate income classification. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment based on the property's nature.
|
