TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here and we find that assessee had been having the same stand by treating the entire rentals as income from house property and claiming 30% standard deduction thereon. There is absolutely no case of divergent of facts in the case of the assessee. Hence, applying the principle laid down in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang [ 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] when there are no divergent facts, the Revenue cannot take a divergent stand for one particular year ignoring the rule of consistency. In view of the aforesaid observations, the ground No.2 is allowed. Taxability of reimbursement of maintenance charges received from the tenant under the head income from other sources - HELD THAT:- As assessee had made payment on 10/01/2012 towards the member s share of contribution for repairing of the entire society building. This payment was admittedly made by account payee cheque through regular banking channels by the assessee to the housing society. The assessee also paid a sum as its share of society maintenance on 24/01/2012 by account payee cheque. The total of these two payments worked. Out of this, since the repairs cost paid to the society by the assessee need to be borne by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after called C.I.T. (A)) erred in passing the order dated 07th February, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') without appreciating the facts of the case and the relevant legal provisions. 2) The C.I.T. (A) erred on facts in confirming the order of the Learned I.T.O.-22(2) (3) (hereinafter called the A.O.) in treating separately the rental income from let out property of ₹ 34,54,199 under the head Income from House Property and rent income from furniture of ₹ 23,02,799 under the head Income from Other Sources . 3) The C.I.T. (A) erred on facts in confirming the order of the A.O. in assessing the reimbursement of maintenance charges from the tenant of ₹ 4,66,802 under the head Income from Other Sources . 4) The C.I.T. (A) erred on facts in confirming the order of the A.O. in not appreciating that the Appellant trust has been showing the entire income under the head Income from House Property since financial year 2009-10. This method of accounting has been consistently followed by the Appellant and the same has been accepted by the Department. 5) The C.I.T. (A) erred on facts in confirming the order of the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties. The ld. CIT(A) however, disregarded the entire contentions of the assessee and upheld the action of the ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.2. The ld. AR before us stated that similar treatment was done by the assessee in the past and also in the future and the same has been accepted by the Revenue in scrutiny assessment for the A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2016-17 and 2018-19 vide orders u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 19/03/2014 (page 135 of the paper book), u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26/12/2018 (page 136 of the paper book) and u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 25/03/2021 (page 138 of the paper book) respectively. She also pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) had made a factually incorrect observation that separate payments were made by the tenant (i.e. State Bank of Patiala) for rent of premises and hire charges for furniture and fixtures. She clarified that the total rental of ₹ 4,62,409.50 had been paid by the State Bank of Patiala as rent by single payment after due deduction of tax at source in terms of Section 194I of the Act. Hence even the lessee bank treated the said payment as rent only. She also drew our attention to the definition of rent given in Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that for A.Y.2010-11, the ld. AO in the order giving effect to ld. CIT(A) order had accepted the stand of the assessee vide his order dated 19/03/2014. Similarly, he has accepted the stand of the assessee in the scrutiny assessments framed for A.Y.2016-17 and 2018-19 vide order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 26/12/2018 and 28/03/2021 respectively. Hence, the rule of consistency would certainly have a role to play here and we find that assessee had been having the same stand by treating the entire rentals as income from house property and claiming 30% standard deduction thereon. There is absolutely no case of divergent of facts in the case of the assessee. Hence, applying the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang reported in 193 ITR 321, when there are no divergent facts, the Revenue cannot take a divergent stand for one particular year ignoring the rule of consistency. In view of the aforesaid observations, the ground No.2 is allowed. 6. The ground No.3 raised by the assessee is only with regard to taxability of reimbursement of maintainence charges received from the tenant under the head income from other sources . 6.1. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
