VAISHNAV S.PURI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI

The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 01-02-2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-30, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)] which relates to assessment year 2009-10.

The assessee HUF is proprietor of Kaks International whose main source of income is from running business centres along with infrastructure facilities and related services.

The main ground which has been taken by the assessee in the appeal is that the assessee claimed income in his return as “business income” and the Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”] treated the same as “income from house property”.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee was providing business centres and his intention was to exploit the commercial assets of the assessee including the furniture/fixtures and air conditioners as well as to render various services which have been mentioned in the agreements. He is also argued that the intention of the assessee was not to earn rental income, but beyond that to cover the investment on the above said assets deployed. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not treating the income of the assessee as “business income” instead of treating the assessee’s income as “income from house property”, hence, the order dated 01-02-2013 is wrong, against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the AO has treated the income of the assessee as “income from house property”, whereas the income of the assessee should be treated “business income”. Therefore, the AO as well as the learned CIT(A) have wrongly treated the income of the assessee as “income from house property” hence, the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 01-02-2013 is liable to be set aside and the income of the assessee is liable to be treated as “business income”.

During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has further contended that the assessee has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court against the orders of the Tribunal for assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 and requested to reopen the matter, if law point would be decided in favour of the assessee and also tendered Form No.8 i.e. declaration u/s 153A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the copy of the order dated 08-02-2013 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein the claim of the assessee has been admitted for adjudication. The order of Hon’ble High Court has been reproduced as under:-

In view of such situation, we admit the claim of the assessee under the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 158A of the Act and decide the grounds of appeal against the assessee with the direction that whenever the question of law raised by the assessee before the Hon’ble High Court relating to the earlier assessment years is replied, the same would apply to the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal also. In other words, the issue in controversy in this case would be decided as and when the matter of controversy would be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court; would be decided irrespective of the orders passed by the Tribunal. In view of the above said observation, the grounds raised in the present appeal of the assessee are decided against the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.