TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant by: Shri Nikhil Bajaj, A.R Respondent by: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R ORDER Ravish Sood, The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, dated 31.10.2017, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short I-T Act‟), for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, dated 28.03.2016 and 29.12.2016, respectively. As common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a consolidated order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) has raised the following grounds of appeal before us : On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (A.O) in charging notional income as income from house properties in respect of unsold units (both residential/commercial), which were held by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sec. 24(b) of ₹ 96,34,676/- (i.e @ 30% of the ALV of ₹ 3,21,15,588/-), therein brought the balance amount of ₹ 2,24,80,912/- [₹ 3,21,15,588/- (-) ₹ 96,34,676/-] to tax under the head Income From House Property . 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee was not persuaded to accept the same. The CIT(A) subscribed to the view taken by the A.O and observed that he had rightly assessed the deemed income i.e the ALV‟ of the unsold completed units as per the provisions of Sec. 22 and Sec. 23 of the I-T Act. Insofar the quantification of the ALV‟ of properties under consideration was concerned, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the same was not assailed by the assessee before him. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 2,24,80,912/- made by the A.O after adopting the annual lettable value at ₹ 3,21,15,588/- in respect of the aforementioned properties was upheld by the CIT(A). 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought to tax under the head Income from house property in its hands. 7. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought by the assessee for adjudicating, as to whether the CIT(A) is right in law and the facts of the case in concurring with the A.O that the Annual Lettable Value‟ of the vacant unsold flats/shops held by it as stock-in-trade of its business of a real estate developer, was liable to be brought to tax under the head Income from house property , or not. Admittedly, the assessee on 31.03.2013 was holding stock-intrade of vacant unsold completed flats/shops of ₹ 37,78,30,452/-. As per the details filed by the assessee, the aforesaid unsold stock of completed units lying vacant with the assessee comprised of various units in viz. Haware City Building., Nisarg Padghe , Airoli Mahalaxmi, 16/30A VIP, 8/8A CBD Belapur, 46/30 Silicon Tower, 29-37 Balaji Tower, 15/22 I-Kamothe, Estate, 92/96 Ghansoli, 12A/8 Shantiniketan Karghar, 17/20 Shrimik, 19/1 Mauli, 53/21 Sankalp and 56/8a Gurukrupa. The A.O dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the 'income from business' and 'income from property' on one side, and 'any income from other sources'. The Tribunal, in our considered opinion, was absolutely unjustified in comparing the rental income with the dividend income on the Shares or interest income on the deposits. Even otherwise, this question was not raised before the subordinate Tribunals and, all of sudden, the Tribunal started applying the analogy. Further, we find that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the assesses own case for the immediately preceding year viz. A.Y. 201213 in Haware Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai [ITA No. 7155/Mum/2016, dated 10.10.2018], had concluded that if an immovable property in the shape of flats/shops is held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of its business, then it becomes part of its trading operations, and any income derived there from would be its business income‟ and not Income from house property‟. On the basis of the aforesaid deliberations, the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for the said preceding year i.e A.Y 2012-13, had vacated the addition of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudice to the ground taken above, the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the ALV of the unsold units (both residential/commercial) held by the appellant as stock in trade at ₹ 12,30,51,935/-, the estimation so made is highly exorbitant. 11. Briefly stated, the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 02.04.2015, declaring total income of ₹ 20,96,66,360/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2). 12. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee was holding vacant unsold flats/shops as stock in-trade‟ of its business of real estate developer. The aggregate cost of construction of the said unsold flats/shops held as stock-ntrade by the assessee amounted to ₹ 144,76,69,828/-. The A.O being of the view that the ALV‟ of the aforesaid property was liable to be brought to tax under the head Income from house property , thus called upon the assessee to furnish the Annual Rental Value of the said respective properties. However, as the assessee failed to provide the requisite details, therefore, the A.O est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
