PR COMMISSIONER OF IT KOTA vs. M/S BHIM SINGH

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 280 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of It Kota ----Appellant Versus M/S Bhim Singh ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 28/03/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department and cross objection filed by the assessee was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in directing to adopt the status of the assessee as an ‘individual” and not as “HUF” as taken by Assessing Officer in light of provisions of Section 27(ii) of Income Tax Act and Section 4, 5 & 6 of the Hindu Succession Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the assessee entitled for exemption u/s. 10(19A) treating entire palace was let out and as such it cannot be said that intire palace was in occupation of ex-ruler? (3) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in restricting the disallowance of expenses without appreciating the same were excessive and unreasonable and the assessee had failed to furnish details and prove the genuineness and commercial

(2 of 3) [ITA-280/2016] expediency of such expenses and as such were not allowable u/s. 37 or 57 or 58 of the Act? (4) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the income earned from ITC Ltd. Be assessed ‘Business Income’ u/s. 28 as against assessed as ‘Income from Other Sources’ u/s. 56 by the Assessing Officer specifically when the assessee neither had any control over the running hotel business nor was a party in running the hotel business? (5) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the rental income received from commercial complex was assessable as ‘Business Income’ u/s. 28 instead of ‘Income from House Property’ u/s. 22 specifically when the motive of the assessee was to earn rental income and was not engaged any business activity? 3. However, the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of same assessee in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 597/2009 (Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. H.H. Maharajo Bhim Singh) decided on 14.12.2016 and CIT Kota Vs. HH Maharajo Bhim Singh & ors., decided on 14.12.2016, wherein it has been held as under: “13. Identical issue in the case of same assessee was pending before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.2812/2015 whereby recently in the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on 05.12.2016, it has been held that the income which has been earned by the former ruler as his income from the requisition of the property is not taxable and in view thereof, the question No.(iv) in relation to taxability of income on requisitioned property is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. 14. Consequently, the other questions which are framed with regard to section 147 and 148 of the Act in our view have been rendered academic inasmuch as the income which has been derived by the assessee is not taxable and no fruitful purpose would

(3 of 3) [ITA-280/2016] be served by examining the issue. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.” 4. In view of above, the appeal stands dismissed. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI)ACTING C.J. //bm gandhi 149