ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED WHITE METAL LTD, MUMBAI

सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ : 08/05/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाक"तार"ख / : 14/05/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member):- 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 21/DCIT-13(1)(1)/IT-197/2016-17 dated 29/05/2017 on following grounds of appeal: -

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the income under contention, as income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" instead of "Income from House Property" as considered by the AO without appreciating that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs CIT(2015) 373 ITR 673(SC) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee as the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of engineering goods.

2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

2. The Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR], at the outset, submitted that identical matter stood covered in assessee’s favor by the order of this Tribunal for AY 2012-13, dated 26/12/2018. A copy of the same has been placed on record. The Ld. DR could not point out any distinguishing feature in the impugned AY vis-à-vis AY 2012-13. Nothing could be brought on record to suggest that the aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

3. Facts on record reveal that the assessee has earned rental income from letting of land and building, which has been reflected as Business Income. However, Ld. AO, upon perusal of factual matrix, came to a conclusion that the said income was to be taxed under the head Income from House Property.

4. The Ld. first appellate Authority reversed the stand of Ld. AO by observing that the assessee’s stand was accepted by the revenue up-to AY 2011-12. For AY 2012-13, the Ld. AO, for the first time, treated the lease rent income as Income from House Property which was reversed by first appellate authority and therefore, the assessee’s stand was to be accepted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

5. Upon perusal of cited order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13, we find that the Tribunal has confirmed the order of first appellate authority by dismissing the revenue’s appeal. Facts being pari- materia the same, taking consistent stand, we dismiss the appeal.

6. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th June, 2019. (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member लेखा सद" / Accountant Member