9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the similar issue has been considered by the ITAT in another case of the group company. He submitted that the assessee is one of the group concerns of DLF Group and in this concern which is a partnership firm, certain assets are owned on which rent is being received. The assets are kept as investment and the assets kept in this firm are not being stock in trade. That rent is received year after year and is being disclosed under the head 'income from house property'. In all the preceding years, the income disclosed under the head income from house property has been accepted. He submitted that the similar issue has been considered by the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Atria Partners vide ITA No.2490/Del/2012 and ACIT Vs. Plaza Partners vide ITA No.1265/Del/2012 and 695/Del/2013. He submitted that those concerns are also entities of the DLF Group and the facts are identical. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) should be sustained. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, fairly admitted that the facts in the case of the assessee are more or less similar to the facts in the case of Atria Partners (supra) and P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital asset by the appellant and without placing on record any material to support his finding that the rental income was to be assessed as business income and not income from property, is patently not justified. On the other hand, on facts of the case, judicial decisions, Supra, and following Rule of Consistency, it is observed that the income from letting out was rightly disclosed under the head income from house property. The Assessing Officer is therefore directed to assess the rental income received under the head 'income from house property' as per the provision of law as against 'business income' assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed." 7. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the learned CIT(A). The assessee is owner of one building which was let out from past several years. The asset which is let out is held as investment and not as stock in trade. In all the preceding years, rental income is shown as income from house property and which has been accepted by the Revenue as such. The learned DR has argued at the time of hearing before us th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate reduction in the income earned in this regard. 7.3 Hence, we agree that there is no logic in treating the income from house property as income from business. We hold that nothing has been brought on record by the AO to show that the income from house property is actual income from business. 7.4 In this regard, we place reliance upon the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd. 281 ITR 346, wherein it was has held that for rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be material change in the fact, situation or in law. We find that in this case there is no change in the facts, situation or in law. Hence, the Revenue cannot be allowed to adopt a different stand. This is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2013 vide order dated 08.10.2013. In this case, it was held that when in earlier asstt. Years the revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, then Revenue cannot be allowed to flip flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers money in pursuing litigation for the sake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to assess rental income under the head 'income from house property' without appreciating the fact that assessee is engaged in the business of building & letting out of commercial complexes." 11. At the time of hearing before us, both the parties fairly admitted that these grounds are identical to ground Nos.1 & 2 of the Revenue's appeal for AY 2008-09 and therefore, whatever is the outcome of the Revenue's appeal for AY 2008-09 would be squarely applicable. We have already considered this issue while deciding the Revenue's appeal for AY 2008-09 and for the detailed discussion above, ground Nos.1 & 2 of the Revenue's appeal are rejected. 12. Ground No.3 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:- "The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,20,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 7,96,563/- claimed u/s 57(iii) of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not prove that such expenditure was expended wholly & exclusively for the purpose of earning such income." 13. We have heard both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. The facts of the case are that the assessee has disclosed the income of Rs. 60,87,202/- under the hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
