Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01/08/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal pertains to treating amenity charges of Rs.53,42,136/- as income from house property and thereby allowing deduction at Rs.16,02,641/- u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
2 Nirmala Zaverchand Shah
During hearing of this appeal, the ld. DR, Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, advanced his arguments which are identical to the ground raised, by defending the assessment order. None was present for the assessee, in spite of issuance of registered AD notice, therefore, we have no option but to proceed ex-party, qua the assessee, and tend to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record.
2.1. We have considered the submissions advanced by ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee received the amount of Rs.78,81,840/- by way of rent and Rs.53,42,136/- out of amenities. The assessee, thereby, showed rental income of Rs.1,32,23,976/-. The Assessing Officer was of the view, that the amount received by way of amenities cannot be treated as income from house property and thereby he treated the same as income from other sources/business income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed standard deduction and added to the total income of the assessee.
2.2. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the stand of the assessee was found convincing, therefore, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal.
2.3. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, 3 Nirmala Zaverchand Shah assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that the amenities available in the building was RCC Frame Structure, Marvel/granite in the common areas, lobbies, etc, Kotah in staircases, two elevators, control room: CCTV in common areas, water supply, electricity, AHU Room and Fire Control System. If the nature of these amenities are analyzed, these are clearly part and partial of the building. Both the agreements of leave and licence and other for amenities are composite one and one cannot be enforced without the other. These are the basic agreement and are integral part to use of licence premises and their uses coextensive/coterminous, therefore, these cannot be segregated, thus, the charges for amenities were rightly held to be income from house property, thus, the claimed deduction is also allowable, therefore, we affirm the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 21/10/2015.