TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, it is not allowable - HELD THAT:- Proceedings under section 154 - technically, the Revenue cannot challenge both these issues in a single appeal, which is the case at hand. As per the provision of the Act, if the Revenue was aggrieved with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of both the appeals filed by the assessee, it should have filed two separate appeals, as the issue arising out of two separate proceedings cannot be clubbed in a single appeal. For this reason alone, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed, as, the present appeal is to be treated as originating from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.2 is dismissed. - ITA no.2498/Mum./2017, ITA no.5348/Mum./2017 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta a/w For the Revenue : Shri Anadi Verma a/w, Shri V.K. Charturvedi ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. These are two appeals relating to the same assessee pertaining to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and set it aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment order in accordance with his observations. In pursuance to the direction of learned CIT, the Assessing Officer framed a fresh assessment, wherein, he treated the lease rental income received by the assessee as income from house property. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, observed that the lease rental income was received by the assessee from Information Technology park (IT Park) situated at Andheri, Mumbai, which was purchased by the assessee from Ackruti City Ltd. He observed, the said IT park has been notified as an infrastructure facility for claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act at the hands of the earlier owner and the said benefit was not passed on to the assessee. He further observed, the assessee had been consistently offering the lease rental income received fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in DCIT v/s E city Project Construction Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.8390/Mum./2010 Ors., dated 30th July 2014. He submitted, the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal holding that rule of consistency should be applied was approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while dismissing Department s appeal in ITA no.149/2015 Ors., vide judgment dated 18th July 2017. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, even CBDT, vide Circular no.16 of 2017, dated 25th April 2017, has held that income from industrial Park/SEZ established under various schemes framed and notified under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act is liable to be treated as income from business. Thus, he submitted, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. The factual matrix arising from record reveals that the disputed lease rental income was received by the assessee from a IT park at Suburban Mumbai. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. In ground no.2, the Revenue has challenged the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing interest expenditure of ₹ 2,82,01,438. 11. Brief facts are, after completion of assessment vide order dated 16th March 2016, in pursuance to the directions of learned CIT under section 263, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 154 of the Act on 22nd August 2016, disallowing the interest expenditure of ₹ 2,82,01,438. The assessee challenged the aforesaid order passed under section 154 of the Act before the first appellate authority. 12. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in a consolidated order disposed off assessee s appeal against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act as well as the order passed under section 154 of the Act. While deciding the appeal filed against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee had inadvertently omitted to claim interest expenditure, though, it was incurred in the year under consideration. Therefore, he filed a computation before the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake and allow t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the assessment completed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act, ground no.2, arises out of the proceedings under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, technically, the Revenue cannot challenge both these issues in a single appeal, which is the case at hand. As per the provision of the Act, if the Revenue was aggrieved with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of both the appeals filed by the assessee, it should have filed two separate appeals, as the issue arising out of two separate proceedings cannot be clubbed in a single appeal. For this reason alone, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed, as, the present appeal is to be treated as originating from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.2 is dismissed. 16. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. ITA no.2498/Mum./2017 Assessee s Appeal 17. This appeal by the assessee is against order dated 26th March 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Mumbai, under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2010 11. 18. As could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
