2003 (4) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 20, 19, 921 made by the Assessing Officer under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act 1961 in respect of non-interest bearing deposits received by the assessee from letting out its premises at Mumbai and Hyderabad to its sister concern? - (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 4, 08, 950 made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-refundable entrance fees received by the assessee? - we answer both the questions in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding non-interest bearing deposits received by the assessee from letting out its premises.
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-refundable entrance fees received by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved the assessee letting out commercial premises to a sister concern and receiving non-interest bearing security deposits. The Assessing Officer added an amount to the assessee's income under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging a collusive arrangement and undervaluation of rent. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal disagreed, finding the Assessing Officer's market rent determination arbitrary and not accounting for amenities. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, considering the premises' comparability and amenities provided. The High Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the factual finding and lack of substantial grounds for appeal by the Department.

Issue 2:
Regarding the non-refundable entrance fees received by the assessee, the Assessing Officer added an amount to the income, which the Commissioner (Appeals) later deleted. The Commissioner found the entrance fees constituted capital receipt based on precedents. Citing a judgment from the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition. The High Court concurred, highlighting the capital nature of entrance fees as established in legal precedents. Consequently, the High Court answered both issues in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal without costs.