TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come from such inseparable letting out should be charged to tax under the head ‘Income from other sources.’ Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly treated lease rentals as falling under the head ‘Income from other sources.’ As regards the contention of the ld. AR for following the rule of consistency inasmuch as in earlier years such income was assessed under the head ‘Income from house property’, we find no force in the same as admittedly there can be no estoppel against the statute. When section 56(2)(iii) specifically provides for treating such income as falling under the head ‘Income from other sources’, there is no rationale in treating it as `Income from house property’ simply on the ground that in the earlier years such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive effect and there is a clear-cut direction to the Department to withdraw or not press such appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect is less than ₹ 10,00,000/-. Going by the prescription of the aforenoted Circular, we are of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this appeal is admittedly less than the prescribed limit for not filing the appeals. Ex conseqeunti we dismiss the instant appeal without going into merits of the case. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 5. Insofar as the Cross Objection of the assessee is concerned, the ld. DR at the very outset vigorously argued that the same should a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A). 7. A bare perusal of the above provision transpires that the AO or the assessee (hereinafter referred to as `the other side ), on receipt of notice of an appeal having been preferred by the appealing party against the order passed by the CIT(A), notwithstanding not having filed separate appeal, may file a Cross objection `against any part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is amply clear from the language of sub-section (4) that the right to file cross objection has been given to the other side against any part of the order of the CIT(A), whether or not connected with the issues raised in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndate of the provision is quite vast and is unlike the prescription of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, which is limited in its realm empowering the respondent to support the impugned order by providing that: `The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. 9. The ld. DR s contention that the Cross objections filed by the assessees should be invariably dismissed in limine for the reason of the dismissal of the appeals of the Department because of low tax effect, in our considered opinion, does not stand to any logic in all circumstances. In a situation where the cross objection is in support of the impugned order, then, of course, such a cross objection has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute on the fact that the lease rent received by the assessee was a composite rent of building, furniture fixtures and electrical installations. It is not the case of the assessee that the letting out this property is his business activity. Thus, the dispute is narrowed down to considering such rental income either under the head Income from house property or Income from other sources. 13. Section 22 of the Act provides that the annual value of the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee earned rental income from letting out of building, furniture fixtures and electrical installations in a composite manner which are inseparable from each other, such income specifically falls under the head Income from other sources and is liable to be taxed accordingly. The Hon ble Supreme Court in a celebrated decision in Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC), has held that where the building and fixtures were intended to be used together, then, combined rental income from such inseparable letting out should be charged to tax under the head Income from other sources. Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly treated lease rentals as falling under the head Income from other sources. 15. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
