THE DCIT, RATLAM vs. LATE SMT. SURAJ BAI JAIN THROUGH L/H SHRI SHANTILAL JAIN, MANDSAUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not the owner of the property, the income derived from the leased and sub-letted property could not be considered as income from house property. The CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as income from other sources was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee leased a property, sub-letted it, and offered the income as 'income from other sources'. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this income as 'income from house property'. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the assessee was not the owner.
What were the issues?
Whether income from a leased and sub-letted property, where the assessee is not the owner, should be treated as income from house property or income from other sources.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI MANISH BORAD
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M: This appeal filed by the revenue is against order of the CIT(A), Ujjain dated 25.1.2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 and the cross appeal filed by the assessee is in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Facts are in brief that the assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.27,180/-, agricultural income of Rs.1,13,463/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) and subsequently, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after following the due process, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
147 of the Act. In the assessment order, the A.O. has 2
[ CO No.7/Ind/2016] [Late Smt. Suraj Bai Jain, Mandsaur] noted that the assessee has taken a property on lease from M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises and the same is sub-letted to Madhya Pradesh Warehousing & Logistics Corporation and offered the income received out of the above transaction as income from the other sources. However, the A.O. has treated it as income from house property. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee is not a owner of the property, therefore, the income received by the assessee cannot be treated as income from house property.
On being aggrieved, revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly relied on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. D.R. also strongly relied on the order passed by the A.O.
[ CO No.7/Ind/2016] [Late Smt. Suraj Bai Jain, Mandsaur]
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the income received by the assessee from M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises, which is a leased property sub-letted to Madhya Pradesh Warehousing & Logistics Corporation is income from other sources or income from house property? According to the A.O., it is an income from house property and according to the Ld. CIT(A), it is an income from other sources. We have examined the entire facts of the case. In this case, the assessee has taken the property on lease sub-letted to Madhya Pradesh Warehousing & Logistics Corporation and income received offered as income from other sources. From the facts, it is very clear that the assessee is not a owner of the property, which is sub-letted to the Madhya Pradesh Warehousing & Logistics Corporation. Therefore, the income derived from [ CO No.7/Ind/2016] [Late Smt. Suraj Bai Jain, Mandsaur] the property on lease cannot be considered as income from house property. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided that the income received by the assessee is an income from other sources. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
As far as the Cross objections filed by the assessee is concerned, it is only supportive to the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of our decision above, no separate adjudication is required, therefore, the same is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 22 .02.2019.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026