Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No’s.110, 111 & 112/PUN/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner of M/s.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. PAN: AALPC 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri M R Bhagwat – AR Revenue by Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 08/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: These Revenue’s three appeals for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’s separate orders; all dated 20.01.2021, passed in case nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); respectively, in proceedings u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].
Heard both the parties. Cases file perused.
It emerges at the outset that the Revenue has pleaded its common substantive grounds as follows:
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
A.Y. 2015-16 “1. Whether Hon’ble ITAT is justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as the commencement of Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year. 2. The ITAT has erred for not appreciating the facts that the conditions laid down in the section are to be satisfied cumulatively and non fulfillment of any of the conditions would render the Industrial Park of the assessee ineligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii). 3. Whether Hon’ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the addition made by A.O. on account of deemed rental income on vacant flats. 4. The Hon’ble ITAT has erred for not appreciating the ruling laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (2013) 29 taxman.com 303 (Delhi). A.Y. 2016-17 1. Whether Hon’ble ITAT is justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as the commencement of Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year. 2. The ITAT has erred for not appreciating the facts that the conditions laid down in the section are to be satisfied cumulatively and non fulfillment of any of the conditions would render the Industrial Park of the assessee ineligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii). A.Y. 2017-18 1. Whether Honhle ITAT is justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as the commencement of Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year. 2. The ITAT has erred for not appreciating the facts that the conditions laid down in the section are to be satisfied cumulatively and non fulfillment of any of the conditions would render the Industrial Park of the assessee ineligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii).” 3. It is sufficiently clear from perusal of the Revenue’s above extracted pleadings that it has wrongly incorporated “ITAT” instead
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
of the correct expression “CIT(A)”. We thus condone this typographical error in larger interest of justice.
Next comes the first and foremost issue of allowability of assessee’s 80IA(4)(iii) deduction scheme vis-à-vis delay in commencement of industrial park issue. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion appears to have followed the tribunal’s order itself in assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 as follows: “16. The second ground of appeal challenges the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) and thereby make an addition of Rs.5,10,05,385/- to the total income. For the year under consideration, the appellant assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.5,10,05,385/- u/s 80 !A(4)(iii) of the Act in respect of the income derived from the Industrial Park. The AO has noted in his assessment order that the claim of deduction has been disallowed during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13, 2.013-14 and also 2014-15. The AO has held that the claim of deduction u/s 80iA(4)(iii) of the Act by the assessee is not allowed as the commencement of Industrial Park Is delayed by more than one year and as has been held in the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, that the assessee undertaking does not fulfill all the conditions notified and approved by the government by the government for the periods specified u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act.
In appeal on behalf of the appellant, it is stated that the assessee has constructed and is operating an Industrial Park under the industrial Park Scheme 2002. The AO disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of profits and gains arising from the said park u/s 80IA(4)(iii) relying upon some technicalities and following the revenue stand in assessee’s earlier assessments. It is pleaded that the ITAT Pune Bench has decided the issue in assessee’s favour, vide its order for A:Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11. It is also stated that CIT(A) has followed this precedent and. deleted similar addition in ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15. It is therefore, requested that the settled legal position may be followed and the addition made by the AO for the A.Y. 2015-16 may be delete.
I have considered the facts of the case and the decisions of the appellate authorities on the issue of claim of the appellant of deduction of profits and gains from the business of construction, and operation of industrial Park. Sec.80IA(4)(iii) allows for 100% deduction in respect of profits and gains derived by undertaking which develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial Park notified by the Central Government for the specified period for 10 Consecutive assessment years out of 15 years, beginning from the year in which the undertaking or enterprise developed and. begins to operate such infrastructure facility. The appellant assessee is an Individual,-and engaged in construction business and for the period under consideration, was in the process of construction of an Industrial Park under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002. The chronology of events leading to the setting up of the appellant assessee’s Industrial Park and the proceedings under the Income Tax Act in respect to the claim of deduction by the appellant assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T.Act 1961 are as under:
i. The assessee submitted the initial application for approval under the Industrial Park Scheme 2002 under non automatic approval route on 8/7/2005. ii. The Park was proposed to be set up at Sai Trinity Building S.No.146, Pashan PUne-411021 containing five units.
iii. The assessee expected the Industrial Park to be operational by 21st September 2005. iv. The assessee received approval vide letter of Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 9th December 2005. ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
v. The assessee apprehending delay in execution vide application dtd. 26th April 2006 requested reduction in number of units from 5 to 3. The assessee received completion certificate for wing ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the building from PMC in January 2007. The first unit of the Industrial Park was let out to Baeckert India Ltd w.e.f 1/11/2006. The Income from Industrial Park thus arose for the first time in assessment year 2007-08 but no deduction u/s 80IA(4) could be claimed as the Income was set off against loses in assessee’s other business.
vi. The Ministry of Commerce raised certain queries regarding assessee’s fresh application dtd.26th April 2006 and also sought a report from the State Government.
vii. Relying upon the report of the State Government the Ministry cancelled approval vide its letter dtd.4/3/2009. This letter was found in the search action against the assessee on 21/1/2010. The assessing officer refused deduction u/s 80IA(4) for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 in post search assessments u/s 153A relying upon this letter of the Ministry.
viii. The assessee took up the matter of refusal before the Empowered Committee of the Ministry of Commerce since approval was withdrawn on the basis of the report of the State Government.
ix. The Empowered Committee allowed approval for three units vide its letter dtd.11th June 2012. x. The assessee produced this letter by way of additional evidence under Rule 46A before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his pending appeals against assessments u/s 153A for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. xi. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction for those two assessment years (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010- 11) against which Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon’ble
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
ITAT, Pune.
xii. In the appeal of the appellant for A.Yrs.2011-12, before the CIT(A), however, the assesse’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii)was disallowed by the AO and was confirmed by the CIT(A), who deviated from his predecessor on the issue holding that the date of commencement in the context of IPS 2002 means the date of obtaining the completion certificate or occupation certificate from the relevant local authority certifying thereby that all the required development activities for the project have been completed which in the case of the appellant was not available and except stating that the undertaking commence operations w.e.f. 1/11/2006 under agreement with Baeckert Industries Pvt Ltd, no evidence like completion certificate/occupancy certificate/copy of agreement with Baeckert Industries Pvt Ltd are placed on record to show that the appellant completed Park as a whole as approved by the government on or before 31/3/2007.The QIT(A) also rejected the contention of the appellant that the competent authority had accorded fresh approval for completion of Industrial Park beyond 31/3/2007 vide later approval dtd.11/6/2012. The CIT(A) also held that when the date of completion of Industrial Park was extended by Finance Act 2006 to 31/3/2009 and later to 31/3/2001, the IPS 2002 scheme was not extended andthat the extension of time limit has only relevance in the context of notification issued under IPS 2008 scheme, and is not applicable to the approvals issued under IPS 2002.The CIT (A) held that in case of notification/approval issued under IPS 2002, the period available for commencement/completion of Park was only upto 31/3/2007, including the grace period of 1 year, unless appellant obtained fresh approval from the Ministry of Commerce/CBDT for completion of project beyond the date of 31/3/2007.Thus as per para 7.3.11 of the CIT(A) order dtd.31/12/2014, for A.Y. 2011- 12, the following findings were given;
“7.3.11 To sum up, the appellant has not complied with one of the essential requirements and core condition stipulated in the notification issued under IPS 2002 i.e. the ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
Industrial Park as a whole has to be completed on or before 31/3/2007. The appellant has not obtained fresh approval to the Industrial Park from the Govt, for availing tax benefits u/s 80IA(4)(iii) though there was a delay in completing the entire project by 31/3/2007. As all the conditions laid down in the section are to be satisfied cumulatively, non- fulfilment of any of the conditions would render the Industrial Park of the appellant ineligible for deduction under the section. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is justified on facts and in law in denying the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4)(iii) by the appellant and the disallowance of rs.4,24,27,370/- made by the Assessing- Officer on this ground is upheld.. Ground of. appeal no.3 raised by the appellant fails.”
xiii. The above position taken by CIT(A) .for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of the appellant was followed in the appellate order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2012-13as well.
xiv. The ITAT Pune however, vide its combined order dtd.25/11/2016, for A.Yrs. 2009-10 & 2010-11,confirmed- the order of the CIT(A) for A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2010- 11, in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The Hon’ble Pune ITAT allowed the deduction by holding as under:
"67. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. We find identical issue had comeup before the Tribunal in the case of M/s KoltePatil Developers Vs. DCIT and Vice-sc-Versa vide IT A No.1411 to 1415/PN/2013 and ITA No.1478to 1483/PN/2013 for A.Yrs 2004-05 to 2009- 10. The Tribunal after elaborately considering identical issue had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:
-------
Since the order of CIT(A) on this issue is in consonance with the issue decided by the Tribunal under ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
identical circumstances, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we do not find any infirmity in his detailed order on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.”
xv. Further, the disallowances of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) for the same project for A.Yrs.2013-14 & 2014-15 made by the AO, were directed to be allowed by the CIT(A) on account of judicial propriety (in view of the order of the Hon’ble lTAT Pune in the case of the appellant for A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010- 11) by holding as under:
“12. It is seen that my predecessor’s order in the A.Y. 2011-12, confirming the disallowance in the appellant’s case was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and therefore, the issues raised by my predecessor in his order have not been addressed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. But judicial propriety requires that the decision of the Tribunal is followed as the facts and circumstances essentially are the same as were considered by the Tribunal in the above cited order. Respectfully, following the Tribunal's order in the assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2009-10 etc, the AO is directed to allow The appellant's claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The ground of appeal no.4 is allowed."
(Para 12 of CIT(A) order dtd. 13/12/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 in the case of the appellant)
xvi. The order of CIT(A) on the issue for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012- 13, was challenged by the appellant before the ITAT-Pune. ITAT Pune vide its order "dtd.8/12/2017, in appeal ITA No.715 & 1294/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13,on the basis of its earlier decision, in assesse's own case, for A.Yrs.2009-10 & 2010- 11, held that the requirement of granting deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act has been approved in the assessee’s own case and therefore following the rule of consistency allowed the grounds
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
raised by the assesse on this issue for both the A.Yrs.2011-12 & 2012-13. xvii. For A.Y. 2014-15, the appeal of the revenue on the issue was again decided in favour of the appellant by the assessee by the ITAT Pune vide its order in ITA No.3004/PUN/2017 dtd. 19/9/2019. 19. In view of the above history, of the decision of ITAT Pune, in the case of the appellant on the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) and following the judicial propriety, as the facts of the case for the year under consideration are similar to the facts of the case in the case of the appellant for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15 and respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune on the issue in the aforesaid years, I direct, the AO to allow the appellant's claim, of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The ground of appeal is therefore allowed.”
The Revenue is more than fair indeed in not pin-pointing any distinction of facts or law; as the case may be, in all these three assessment years. Faced with this situation, we decline its instant former issue in 2015-16 and sole substantive grievance in latter twin assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The corresponding latter twin appeals ITA No.111 and 112/PUN/2021 stands rejected accordingly.
We now advert to the Revenue’s latter substantive grievance in ITA No.110/PUN/2018 raising the issue of deemed rental income on assessee’s vacant flats involving Rs.7,17,360/-; assessed as house property income. The CIT(A) has decided the same in assessee’s favour as follows:
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
“20. The third ground of appeal challenges the addition of Rs.7,17,360/- under the head ‘income from house property’ and not granting benefit of vacancy allowance to the tax payers. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the appellant assesse was holding closing stock of 5 unsold flats In, Minakshi Sarovar project and 2 unsold flats in Raja Prakruthi Project where the assesse had 55%. share. The AO relied on the provisions u/s 23(4) of the Act and rejected the argument of the assessee that the unsold units are meant for sale and rent and no deemed income was to be considered or even if, deemed rent was to be considered then being the VACANT UNITS during .the year, the benefit of vacancy allowance may be granted. The AO relied on the decision, of Delhi High Court in the case of -CIT Vs Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Go Ltd (2013) 29 taxmann.com 303 (Dei) and held that the levy of Income Tax in the case of the assesse who is holding more than one house property, is premised not on whether the assesse caries on business, as landlord but on the ownership. The AO noted that only the property occupied by the assessee used for the purpose of business by him was exempt from levy of income tax. The AO also held that mere possession of stock in trade does not qualify as occupation for business purpose and therefore, deemed rent as per the provisions of sec.23(4) of the Act was chargeable on the 7 unsold units even though they were held as stock in trade by the assessee. He therefore, computed an income of Rs.7,17,360/- as deemed rental income and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
During the appeal proceedings, on behalf of the appellant, the addition was vehemently opposed. It was claimed that where the concerned units form part of stock in trade of the assessee, the sale of such stock in trade shall result into income from business or profession. The assessee relied on the decision of ITAT Pune in the case of Shri Balaji Ventures ITA No/1914/PUN/2018 dtd.19/2/2019, where the Bench deleted the similar addition in the case of a builder. The appellant also relied on the Bombay Bench judgment in the case of-.ITO Vs. Arihant Estate Pvt Ltd.
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
The issue of whether the residential .units held as stock in trade by anassessee engaged in the businesses builder and developer, would be assessed as deemed rental income u/s 23 of the Act has been dealt by the order of ITAT, Pune in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Ventures in ITA No.1914/PUN/2018. The observations made in the aforesaid order which is very relevant in the instant case is reproduced as under:
"3. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee is engaged in the business as a Builder and Developer. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee was holding closing stock of one office building and one showroom. Invoking provisions of section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act’), the AO opined that the Annual .Letting Value of the property was required to be determined and added to the assessee’s total income. The assessee’s contention that two units in respect of which "income from house property" was proposed to be computed, were its stock in trade and hence, no income could be determined thereon under this head, did not find favour. The AO computed deemed rental income u/s.23 of the Act at Rs.34,35,432/- and, added it to the assessee’s total income. The Id. CIT(A) countenanced the action of the AO, against which the assesssee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material! on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assesses, a Builder and Developer, was holding two properties as its stock in trade, from which the deemed rental income has been computed u/s 23 of the Act and added to its total income. The AO has made out a case that levy of income tax in respect IT A No.1914/PUN/2018 M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures of properties held by the assessee as an owner, cannot be marred even if the same have been held as stock in trade. The bedrock of the action of the authorities below is certain decisions which, in turn are based on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in East India Housing & Land Development Trust VS. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
(SC). It has been held in the latter decision that where a builder, being, owner lets out property for some time pending sale, the income so derived is to be taxed under the head "Income from house property” and not as "Business income”. So the ratio is that even if a builder lets out his property, held as stock in trade, income there from will be chargeable under the head 'Income from house property’ and not as 'Business income’. It is pertinent to note that such a legal position has undergone some transformation.
In Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), the assessee whose business was to acquire properties, let out certain properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared business income'. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head income, from house property”. The' Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deciding ITA No.1914/PUN/2018 M/s.Shree Balaji Ventures factor for determining 'as 'td whether, the income is to be Charged under the head “Income from house property” is not the ownership of property but the nature of operations in relation to them. Considering the objects of the company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such income was chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) considered a situation in which the assessee was engaged the business of renting its properties. The assessee claimed such rental income as falling under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession”. The AO denied such a treatment. When the matter finally came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it considered both the judgments, naively, S.G. Mercantile Corporation (supra) and Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd (supra) and thereafter held that : 'the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct position of taw’. That is how, their Lordships held that the income was to be charged to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession”.
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
ITA No.1914/PUNE/20108 M/s/.Shree Balaji Ventures
In view of the foregoing discussion, if is apparent that the view point bolstered by the authorities that, Annual' Letting Value in respect of unsold properties lying with the assessee 'as a' stock in trade should be determined' U/s. 23 "of the Act, cannot be countenanced in the hue: of the later judgments of the Hon'ble Summit Court. Once it is held that the income of a Builder in respect of letting out of the properties is chargeable under the head "Profit and gains of business or profession”, the provisions enshrined in Chapter IV-D get magnetized and not those under the head "Capital gains". It is no doubt true that section 23 of the Act deems the determination of income from house property, which is not let out, but it is equally trite that a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond its ambit, so as to cover the heads of income or the sections, to which it does not operate. My attention has not been drawn by the Id. DR towards any specific provision under Chapter IV-D of the Act which deems rental income on the properties held as stock in trade, waiting for sale and not actually let out, as chargeable to tax under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. As the assessee admittedly did not earn any rental income from letting out of these two units, which position has also not been disputed by ITA No. 1914/PUN/2018 M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures the AO, in my considered opinion, taxing any hypothetical income, which is otherwise not sanctioned by any provision under Chapter IV-D, cannot be permitted.
Even otherwise, section 5 of the Act clearly stipulates that a person who is a resident can be subjected to tax in respect of income from whatever source which is received or is deemed to be received in India or accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise to him in on outside India during such year. As the instant imaginary income charged to tax by the AO is neither a deemed income under the head 'Business income’ nor is received or deemed to be received or accruing or arising or deemed to accrue or arise, not falling in any of the categories given in clauses (a) to (c) of section 5(1), I hold that there is no rationale in charging it to tax. I,
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
therefore§ overturn the impugned order and direct to delete the addition of Rs.34.35 lakh.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.”
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt Ltd reported in (2007) 164 Taxman 342 has held that when the business of the assessee is to construct the property and' sell it or to construct or let out then that would be the ’business’ and the business stocks which may include movable and immovable properties would be taken to be 'stock in trade’ and any income derived from such stocks cannot be termed as ‘income from house property’. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R.Developments Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT in ITA No.4277/2012 order dtd. 13/5/2015, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) has held that on the flats which were unsold, which were neither given on rent or the assessee had intention to let out the flats, no deemed rental income could be considered in assessee’s hands. Also, the co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s Cosmopolis Construction (in ITA Nos.230 and 231/PUN/2018 dtd. 12/9/2018) after consideringthe decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd (supra), the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R.Developments Pvt Ltd (supra) after also considering the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction reported in (2013) 28 taxmann.com 303 has held that no notional annual rental value on unsold flats held in stock in trade can be made in assessee’s hands.
The above said judgment of Pune HAT, in the case of M/'s Shree Balaji Ventures are on similar facts. Important ones being that the appellant is also engaged in the business of construction of and sale of housing projects and for the years under consideration has unsold fiats as part of the stock in trade, which are subsequently sold and offered as business income. During the appeal proceedings, it has been submitted
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
on behalf of the appellant that the assesse has been able to sell three flats from Minakshi Sarovar and one flat from Raj Prakrutias on date, which proceeds are part of the revenues of the appellant, and offered to tax and only two flats from Minakshi Sarovar and one flat from Raj Prakruti are still in stock. Accordingly, following the judgment of Pune ITAT and other court judgments as indicated above, it. is held that no addition' on account of deemed rent on unsold flats can be made in the hands of the appellant company for the year under consideration. The appeal of the appellant on this issue is allowed.”
Suffice to say, it has come on record that the CIT(A) has followed various judicial precedents (supra) which hold that the impugned notional rental addition could not be made regarding the residential assets included in stock-in-trade(supra). Faced with this situation, we affirm the CIT(A) impugned findings qua the instant latter issue as well. The Revenue’s first appeal ITA 110/PUN/2021 also fails therefore.
These Revenue’s three appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th November, 2022. (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 16th Nov, 2022/ SGR*
ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 to 17-18 (R) M/s. Balkrishna Shanmugham Chettiar Alias S. Balan
आदेशक""ितिलिपअ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant. 1. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब"च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड"फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.