M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

:-3-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025

6. The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. As regards the contention of the assessee that the rental income of Rs. 3,71,13,608/- is taxable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not under the head 'Business Income', it is relevant to note that the assessee itself had originally offered this income under the head 'Business Income'. The issue as to whether rental income to be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' or 'Business Income' is a contentious one. The decision as regards the head of income under which rental income is to taxed has to based on the following salient features of the rental transactions entered into by the assessee as well as the constitution documents: a. Intent of the assessee - this intention can be gathered from the agreement for lease, Memorandum of Association and subsequent conduct of the parties. b. Active ownership of property - if the property yields rental income by virtue of its own legal existence, it would be classified as passive ownership and the rental income arising is to be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'. c. However, if the renting out of property is being done as part of a systematic and regular business operation and not as a passive owner, the rental income is taxable under the head 'Business Income'. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the cases of Chennai Properties & Investments Limited [373 ITR 673, Karanpura Development Co. Limited [44 ITR 362) and Rayala Corporation (P.) Limited [386 ITR 500] has held that the deciding factor is not the ownership of the land or leases, but the nature of the activity of the assessee and the nature of the operations in relation to the same. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that for income to be characterised as business income," the activities actually carried out by the assessee needs to be in line with the main object of its business activities as per its constitution documents. Moreover, the CBDT has issued circular no. 16/ 2017 dated 25 April, 2017, wherein it has been clarified that the income from letting out of premises/ developed space along with other facilities in an industrial park/ SEZ is to be charged to tax under the head "Business Income".

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, to come to a conclusion as to whether rental income is to be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' or under the head 'Business Income', it is required of the AO to carefully examine the constitution documents of the assessee, lease agreements etc. which can be done only under regular scrutiny examination. However, the AO has passed rectification order without any such examination and in any case such examination cannot be undertaken in proceedings u/s 154. It is also relevant to note that the assessee in its return of income had stated its business to be 'Property Development' and rental income from lease of premises and therefore this issue required all the more a detailed examination before coming to a conclusion about the head of income under which it is to be taxed. Therefore, the action of the AO of accepting the claim of the assessee in the said rectification order that the said rental income is taxable under the head 'Income from House Property' as against income offered by the assessee itself in the return under the head 'Business Income', is erroneous. Moreover, since the AO has allowed the assessee notional deduction u/s 24 of Rs. 1,09,28,075/- @ 30% while recomputing the income of the assessee under the head 'Income from House Property', the action of the AO is also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

:-4-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the rectification order passed u/s 154 dated 19.07.2022 by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010- 11 is considered to be erroneous as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The same is hence partly set aside, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries as per the discussion in the preceding paragraphs and pass a fresh order within the stipulated time, after providing due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.”

:-5-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025

8. The AO has passed an order u/s.154 of the Act dated 02.06.2022 by observing that the mistake above is apparent from record and hence rectified the same. According to the ld.PCIT, the order of passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue since, the treatment of rental income under the head ‘Income from house property’ instead of ‘income from business’.

9. We note that the issue in dispute is no more res integra, since the similar issue under the identical set of facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 has already been decided in favour of the assessee in No.511/Chny/2024 dated 11.06.2025 by holding as under:

“7. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before proceeding further to be deem it necessary to extract the statutory provisions of section 263 of the Act.

“…263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.—(1) The 1[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the 2[Assessing Officer] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 3[4[Explanation 1.]—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed 5[on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the 6[Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the 7[Joint Commissioner] under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the 7[Joint Commissioner] in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the 8[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or 9[Principal Director General or Director General] or 1[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) ―record‖1[shall include and shall be deemed always to have :-6-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025 included] all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the 1[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal 5[filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988], the powers of the 1[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under this sub-section shall extend 2[and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.] 733 1[Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] 2[(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, 3[National Tax Tribunal,] the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded….”

10. At this stage, we would like to examine first the reasons for the passing of the impugned order u/s.154 by the Ld.AO dated 01.06.2022. The same is necessary because of the huge time gap of rectifying u/s. 154 of the Act an order u/s 143(1) dated 04.11.2010 after a gap of nearly 12 years. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it had made a request for rectification u/s 154 long back on 27.12.2010. It is the case of the assessee that as there was no action, it filed another request for rectification on 02.07.2018 followed by another reminder dated 19.02.2019. The Ld. Counsel has filed copies of his applications dated 02.07.2018 and 19.02.2019 along with annexure. The assessee has stated that the Board had issued circular no.4 of 2012 dated 20.06.2012 in which it had discussed the issue of disputed arrear demands appearing in the records of Revenue. Apropos to the aforesaid circular some assessing officers had stated that a reconciliation of disputed arrear demand was difficult given the expiry of four years limitation period prescribed u/s 154(7). Consequently, in exercise of powers u/s 119(2)(b) the board allowed the assessing officers to reconcile disputed arrear demands by taking actions including rectifications irrespective of expiry of limitation period prescribed u/s 154(7). Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that in its case rectification was done by the Ld.AO taking support of above circular.

11. Coming to the controversy of the order u/s 154 being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as held by Ld.PCIT, we have noted that the conclusion is not correct. As discussed herein above explanation-2 to section 263 states that an order shall be deemed to be erroneous if (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim. The Ld.PCIT has subscribed to the view that the order u/s 154 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because the Ld.AO has not done any examination upon the matter as to how the business income was to be treated as income from house property. He held the view that the issue required a detailed examination. Similarly on the issue of treatment of declared short time capital gains as long term capital gains he has held that such a claim could have been allowed only after due examination of the agreement of the sale, corresponding purchase agreement, period of holding etc and which has not been done by the Ld.AO. Pertinently, the Ld.PCIT has also observed in his order that the Ld.AO did not had any authority to conduct the enquiries u/s 154. The Ld.PCIT has placing reliance upon ratios laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court on merits, ordinarily the rental income was to be assessed as business income in such case. The observation of the Ld.PCIT regarding that no verification / enquiries was undertaken by the Ld.AO before :-8-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025 passing order u/s 154 are correct. The question that however arises is that why as the Ld.AO refrained from doing any enquiries or verification. It is settled principle of law as repeatedly emphasized by Hon’ble Supreme Court and High courts that the scope of section 154 is very limited and circumscribed and does not encompass any investigation, verification and evaluation of facts and record. It is well settled now that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.

raised by the assessee.

15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th September, 2025 at Chennai. (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्यायिर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated, the 12th September, 2025 RL