9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner-assessee questions the impugned order dated 2 September 2022, made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 254 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the assessment year 2004-05. 4. The conspectus of facts in which the above challenge arises is set out briefly hereafter: a) The petitioner is engaged in the marketing, selling, and distributing various consumer products, including laundry and hair care products. The petitioner is the owner of a building named P.G. Plaza situated in the suburban area of Mumbai; b) The petitioner has let out a portion of the above building to third parties, and rent received from such third parties was offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01. i) The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 369/Mum/2016 under Section 254 (2) before the ITAT, contending that [1] real income theory was applicable in this matter; [2] Grounds 4 and 5 relating to the allowability of expenses were not adjudicated, and [3] reference was incorrectly made to the petitioner-assessee instead of PGHH while considering the tribunal's order for the earlier years; j) The revenue appealed the ITAT's order dated 6 June 2016 to this Court under Section 260-A of the Act. Simultaneously, the revenue also filed MA No. 209/Mum/ 2017 under Section 254 (2) inter alia on the ground that the tribunal's orders in the case of PGHH could not have been regarded as precedents, and, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GHH could be classified as "income from other sources" or "income from house property" is pending before this Court in the revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order dated 6 June 2016. o) Upon remand, however, the ITAT, by the impugned order dated 2 September 2022, re-adjudicated the entire matter and held that the amounts receivable from PGHH were to be taxed as "income from house property". Given this finding, the ITAT also held that the real income theory was not applicable since this was a case of "income from house property". Grounds 4 and 5 were, however, sent to the assessing officer for verification. p) The petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 2 September 2022, has instituted this petition; 5. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court admitted the revenue appeal, and therefore, the finding about the nature of income derived by the petitioner from PGHH could not be said to have attained any finality. For these reasons, Mr. Mishra submitted that this petition can be dismissed. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. Based on the facts we narrated above, we are satisfied that, at least qua the ITAT, the finding that income receivable from PGHH was "income from other sources" had attained finality. The issue of whether this finding was correct is pending before this Court in the revenue's appeal admitted on 26 August 2019. 10. The ITAT, in deciding the assessee's appeal on remand, could not have re-visited the above issue and held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceivable by the petitioner-assessee from PGHH was income from house property. On the above ground, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated 9 February 2022 warrants interference and needs to be quashed and set aside. 13. The ITAT's jurisdiction under Section 254 [2] of the IT Act is limited. It is not akin to a substantial review. This Court clarified this position in an earlier round when the ITAT had similarly exceeded its jurisdiction. The issue of whether the income receivable by the petitioner from PGHH was income from house property or income from other sources was writ large before this Court in the Revenue's pending appeal. The ITAT, exercising powers under section 25 4[2] of the IT Act, could not have reviewed its earlier f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
