TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show their income in the individual name and has to pay rent under the Income Tax Act, 1962 accordingly. The SSI exemption N/N. 8/2008 dated 01/03/2008 (previously 6/2005 dated 01/03/2005) shall be available for individual owner of the above property for considering the taxable value of the service received by the individual owners - clubbing of value of service (rent in this case) of all the four individual co-owners of property is legally not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeals No. 50976, 50989-50991 of 2015 - Final Order No. 52131-52134/2018 - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Gupta, C.A. for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id property has been jointly leased out to M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. by the co-owners vide Lease Deed dated 15/11/2006 . 2. It can be seen that the service tax has been confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority against the above-mentioned four appellants only on the basis that the said property has jointly been leased out to M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. by the co-owners vide lease deed agreement dated 15/11/2006, hence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that since all the above applicants provided the service of renting of immovable property service collectively to a single service receiver M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. thus liability to service tax should be discharged collectively on the amount of rent received by them even though they have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following case laws :- (i) Anil Saini vs. CCE, Chandigarh I 2017 (51) S.T.R. 38 (Tri. Chan.) ; (ii) CCE ST, Allahabad vs. Luxmi Chaurasia 2017 (49) S.T.R. 541 (Tri. All.) and (iii) CCE, Nasik vs. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1146 (Tri. Mumbai). The relevant extract of Anil Saini vs. CCE, Chandigarh I (supra) is reproduced here below :- 3. After hearing both the sides, considering the fact that the issue has already been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nasik v. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1146 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein this Tribunal observed as under : 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eements with M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental bank of Commerce, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Standar Life Insurance Ltd. are also entered into by the appellants in their individual capacity, as per SCN also, all four co-owners have obtained separate Registration Certificate on 10-4-2012 and all the four co-owners individually paid their service tax liability along with interest on 14-2-2012. Thus, the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting of immovable Property by the four appellants in this case is in their individual capacity and, therefore, their tax liability should have been determined by considering their individual rental receipts and not collective one. From the various lease agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Year 2009-10 and 2010-22, the receipt of rent by each appellant exceeded the statutory exemption limit of ₹ 10 lakhs and the appellants have paid service tax along with interest on their own before receipt of SCN. This fact is not disputed by the department also and no additional tax liability has been worked out for the said period in OIO. 6.4 Since the appellants were individually liable to pay service tax and eligible for the exemption under general exemption Notification 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, no service tax was payable during the said period. Hence, the question of penalty under Section 76 for the said period does not arise. For the subsequent period i.e. 2009-10 2010-11, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him and informed the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing. Further in Explanation 2 of the said sub section it is also clearly provided that no penalty under any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of service tax under this sub-section and interest thereon. Hence, in fact no SCN was required to be issued in this case for recovery of service tax and imposition of penalty and even when it has been issued, no penalty under Section 76 or 78 is imposable in this case for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11. 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority, the conclusion arrived at is very correct, as co-owners of the property cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
