TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) has considered the facts, circumstances, provisions of the Act, judicial decisions, and the assessee own case for the A.Y 2010-11 of his predecessor and sustained the addition and passed the reasoned order. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 2352 And 2353/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2022 - Shri G.S. Pannu, President And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Mr. T. Shankar. DR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: These are the appeals filed the by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 250 of the Act. Since the issues in these two appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. 2. On perusal of the facts, the appeal was filed by the assessee on 12.04.2019 and the case was posted for hearing on 10.12.2020, 09.02.2021, 07.04.2021, 07.06.2021, 28.08.2021, 14.10.2021, 01.12.2021, 19.01.2022, 08.03.2022 and today i.e 20.04.2022, none appeared on dates of hearing nor a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,32,370/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and the case was discussed. The assessing officer (A.O) on perusal of the financial statements in particular profit and loss account found that the assessee has disclosed the revenue from operations of Rs. 87,76,600/- and the information was called in respect of business receipts. Whereas the assessee has filed the details of business receipts and the A.O found that the business receipts consists of rental income from three parties and TDS u/sec194I of the Act was deducted. 5. The A.O. has perused the rental agreements and observed that the property was leased out to tenants and the income received from the property is treated as income/receipts from business and the assessee has claimed the other expenditure including salaries wages, director s remuneration, staff welfare expenses and depreciation. The A.O has dealt on the provisions of Sec.22 of the Act and judicial decisions and a show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case. The A.O has observed that the appellant has shown under the head revenue from operation at Rs.87,78.600/. It was contended by the Assessing Off icer that it is noticed from rent agreement, the appellant has leas out its property to M/s. Gitanjali Gems Ltd., La Casa De .Joailier Pvt. Ltd. and Bharati Airtel Ltd. situated at Unit No. 4A, Western Industrial Estate, Plot No. F-il 12, MIDC Industrial Area, Marol Andheri(E), Mumbai. As per 26AS, it was notice that the appellant has received income from above parties and said parties have deducted TDS on the rent as per provision of section 1941 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court the case of East India Housing and Land Development trust Ld. vs. CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49(SC) and Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (263 ITR 143) (SC) and CIT vs. Chennai Properties Investments Ltd. - 266 ITR 685 (Mad. HC) and taxed the rent or rent agreement between two parties should be assessed under the head income from house property u/s. 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 4.3.1The appellant submitted that the Company was incorporated on 7 November 1984 and was eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant that the House Property located at Unit No. 4A, Western Industrial Estate, Plot No. F- li 12 MIDC Industrial Area, Marol Andheri(E), Mumbai, on which it was earning the rental income was constructed by it, though it was situated in a leased property. Ownership of the building therefore vested with the appellant. May be appellant was not sure under which head of income, the rentals had to be shown. However, income earned by the appellant by letting it, any commercial or business activity is chargeable under the head 'Income from House Property as held by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Keyaram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (supra). It is noticed that the appellant could be considered as owner of the property since the property and section 27(iiib) would be attracted. However, in my opinion answer to the question lies in Section 22 of the Act, which is the charging section 22 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
