M/S. GOEL RAISONI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that income from properties held as stock-in-trade by a builder is taxable under 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and not 'Income from House Property'. It further held that no tax can be levied on unsold properties where no income has actually been earned.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a real estate developer, had an unsold property shown as closing stock. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 23(4) to tax hypothetical rental income from this property. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether hypothetical rental income from unsold property held as stock-in-trade can be taxed under 'Income from House Property'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT381 citing373 ITR 673 · 2015 · SC
- S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta126 citing83 ITR 700 · 1972 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 12-05-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune for assessment year 2013-14.
2 ITA No.1947/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14
The only issue is to be decided as to whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer by fixing Annual Letting Value u/s. 23(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. According to the Assessing Officer that the assessee is an AOP and engaged in the business of building construction/development of real estate. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has one unsold property which has got completion certificate from the competent authority and has been shown as closing stock. He proposed to invoke the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The assessee furnished explanation vide letter dated 14-03-2016 contending that unsold flat was sold in subsequent year i.e. assessment year 2014-15 and such proposed rental income would fall under the head “Business Income” but not from “Income from House Property”. The Assessing Officer held the explanation offered by the assessee is not tenable and found not acceptable. The Assessing Officer deputed its Inspector to ascertain the fair market rent of the aforesaid unsold flat and on the basis of report of such Inspector, he determined the gross annual lettable value at Rs.90,000/- and by allowing standard deduction of 30%, an amount of Rs.63,000/- added to the total income of the assessee vide this order dated 17-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the First Appellate proceedings agreed with the view of Assessing Officer and upheld the invocation of sub- section (4) of section 23 of the Act.
3 ITA No.1947/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14
Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee before us, reiterated the submissions made before the two lower authorities and placed reliance of the order of SMC Bench in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1914/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 decided on 19-02-2019.
The ld. DR did not controvert the findings of Tribunal in holding when there is no earning of rental income from letting out of properties there cannot be any taxation on any hypothetical income.
On perusal of the order dated 19-02-2019 in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures Vs. ITO (supra) as relied on by the ld. AR, we find that the Assessing Officer therein proposed to invoke the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act on two properties which were held by the assessee therein as closing stock. It is noted that the assessee therein contended no income can be determined on the properties held as stock-in-trade under the head “Income from House Property” and it should be computed under the income from business and profession. The SMC Bench considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking support from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of S.G. Mercantile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 83 ITR 700 (SC) and Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 373 ITR 673 (SC), held the income of builder in respect of letting of properties is chargeable to tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession but not under the income from house property. Further, held that there cannot be any taxation to the effect when there is no income on such properties which were unsold. Therefore, we find that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar and identical to
4 ITA No.1947/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14
the facts and circumstances of the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures Vs. ITO (supra) and thus, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified, is set aside, grounds raised by the assessee succeeds and are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th September, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 13th September, 2019 RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-4, Pune 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 23(4)
- Tushar Harishkumar Gangwani, Surat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), SuratITA 188/SRT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Pradeep Ravichandra Kothari, AhmedabadITA 2328/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Apr 2026AY 2017-18
- Khinvasara Chavan, Pune vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2402/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
- Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), AhmedabadITA 1720/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
- Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta, Mumbai vs The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1091/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026