D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

Appearances by: Shri Rip Das, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A. Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT, appearing on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : May 16th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : July 4th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 27/10/2016, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Central Business Services Ltd for our adjudication is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that security deposit received by the assessee, on renting of its premises to “India Infoline Ltd. (IIFL)”, is not income.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Central Business Services Ltd was executed w.e.f. 11/10/2011. The security deposit would only be adjusted during July, 2015 to September, 2015. While so, the amount in question cannot be brought to tax in the impugned Assessment Year 2012-13. 7.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, rightly relied on the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Prince Rubber & Plastics [2004] 1 SOT 85 (ASR.), wherein it is held that advance tax could not be brought to tax in the year of receipt as the income from house property could only computed on the basis of annual lettable value of the property. The Delhi ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of P.S. Cars (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2005] 4 SOT 143 (Delhi), wherein it has been held as follows:- “Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Rent - Assessment year 1995-96 - Assessee had taken on rent a premises - It paid a sum of Rs. 2,22,000 to lessor as interest-free deposit and claimed that said deposit was a security deposit and it was adjustable against rent only at end of lease period and 3 months’ notice was required to be given for vacating premises - Assessing Officer held that said deposit was nothing but rent paid in advance by assessee and, therefore, assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 194-I from security deposit - Whether since on reading lease deed as a whole intention of parties appeared to be that deposit would be adjusted only when assessee had finally decided to vacate premises for ever, deposit placed by assessee was not rent paid in advance but, in fact, was a security deposit - Held, yes - Whether merely because rent was taken as basis, deposit did not lose its character as a deposit - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, said deposit did not fall within definition of term ‘rent’ as given in clause (i) of Explanation to section 194-I - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194-I from security deposit - Held, yes”