MAYURI BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 22(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1922/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 November 2017AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders, treating the mobile tower rental income as income from 'Other Sources' and disallowing interest expenses. The assessee failed to provide substantiation or evidence for its contentions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a builder, declared rental income from a mobile tower on its terrace. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as income from 'Other Sources' instead of 'House Property' and disallowed interest expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether rental income from a mobile tower on the terrace should be treated as income from 'House Property' or 'Other Sources', and whether interest expenses were allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Hearing: 08.11.2017Pronounced: 08.11.2017

This appeal by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 02.01.2014 for A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)] erred in upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer of treating Rental income disclosed under the head Income from House Property of Rs 4,07,227/- as Income from Other Sources and taxed accordingly without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing Interest paid of Rs.2,69,540/- and taxed accordingly.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm, engaged in the business of builder, filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of `1,86,32,943/-. The assessment was completed on 25.10.2011 under Section 143(3). The AO

M/s. Mayuri Builders while passing order besides the other additions and disallowances treated the income from ‘House property’ as income from ‘Other Sources’ and further disallowed interest expenditure of `2,69,540/-. On appeal before the CIT(A) the action of the AO was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before us.

4.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving sufficient time. The assessee is habitual in not appearing on the date of hearing. The assessee has filed paper book on 13.09.2017 and the hearing was adjourned for 07.11.2017. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on 07.11.2017, hence the case was again adjourned for 08.11.2017. Today, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed before us. We have left with no option but to hear the learned D.R. and decide the case on the basis of material available on record.

5.

The learned D.R. for Revenue submitted that the assessee has shown rental income for allowing Mobile tower on the terrace and hence the assessee has not rented out any part of the building and the income earned from such service is not income from ‘House property’ and the same was treated as income from other sources. It was argued that similar disallowance was made for A.Y. 2008-09. Further the assessee has shown a loan to its sister concern and the assessee has not charged any interest on the loan advanced to the said party. The assessee has paid interest on `2,69,540/- against the loan availed by the assessee.

6.

We have considered the submissions of the learned D.R. for Revenue and perused the material available on record. We have seen that similar income earned from mobile towers was treated as income from other sources for A.Y. 2008-09. The assessee has neither came forward nor filed any material or written submissions to substantiate his contention to convince us to treat the income received on installation of Mobile tower on terrace is income from house property. Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities. Further, for M/s. Mayuri Builders disallowance of interest paid by the assessee, the assessee has neither substantiated nor filed any documentary evidence to prove the business expediency. Hence, the disallowance on account of interest is also confirmed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →