Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 257 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of rent received - Income from house property - assessee had received composite rent from its tenant State Bank of Patiala for letting out of premises and letting out of furniture and fixtures etc. - HELD THAT:- We find that the lessee bank had also treated the entire payment of rental and hire charges as the composite payment and had charged tax at source in terms of Section 194I - This aspect, in our considered opinion, is not a relevant consideration for the purpose of determination of taxability of rental under the head of income in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the arguments advanced by the ld. AR in this regard is hereby dismissed. As going by the fact that for A.Y.2010-11, the ld. AO in the order giving effect to ld. CIT(A) order had accepted the stand of the assessee vide his order dated 19/03/2014. Similarly, he has accepted the stand of the assessee in the scrutiny assessments framed for A.Y.2016-17 and 2018-19 vide order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26/12/2018 and 28/03/2021 respectively. Hence, the rule of consistency would certainly have a role to play here and we find that assessee had been having the same stand by treating the entire rentals as income from house property and claiming 30% standard deduction thereon. There is absolutely no case of divergent of facts in the case of the assessee. Hence, applying the principle laid down in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] when there are no divergent facts, the Revenue cannot take a divergent stand for one particular year ignoring the rule of consistency. In view of the aforesaid observations, the ground No.2 is allowed. Taxability of reimbursement of maintenance charges received from the tenant under the head ‘income from other sources’ - HELD THAT:- As assessee had made payment on 10/01/2012 towards the member’s share of contribution for repairing of the entire society building. This payment was admittedly made by account payee cheque through regular banking channels by the assessee to the housing society. The assessee also paid a sum as its share of society maintenance on 24/01/2012 by account payee cheque. The total of these two payments worked. Out of this, since the repairs cost paid to the society by the assessee need to be borne by the tenant i.e. State Bank of Patiala, the assessee got a sum of ₹ 4,45,266/- reimbursed from State Bank of Patiala on 03/02/2012. In effect, the assessee claimed deduction on account of maintenance charges only to the extent of ₹ 21,536/- as the same represents its share to be borne. Since, the assessee had merely got the reimbursement of maintenance charges paid by it to the society of ₹ 4,45,266/- from its tenant State Bank of Patiala, there is no income element in it. Hence, the reimbursement received by the assessee cannot be sought to be taxed by the ld. AO under the head ‘income from other sources’
|