2012 (4) TMI 467 - AT - Income Tax

Income from a market complex for commercial purpose - Income from house property or business income Held that - The Assessing Officer has rather misdirected himself to hold the case laws cited by him leaning in favour of the Department - that the bank took cognizance of the commercial viability of this project to grant loan which partners pooled their resources to repay the loan and let out the property to the commercial organizations for earning income against which incidental expenses incurred for carrying out such activities - as it is rendered its income, residual to receipts from the lessees on account of electricity, water charges etc., which are the business activities from the assessee to charge for their portion and incur the remaining for itself along with the maintenance and providing security was in the nature of carrying out commercial activities and not for the purpose of letting it out as house property- the impugned orders of the authorities below are set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to accept the return of the assessee holding the same as income from business and not income from house property in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Determination of income from a market complex constructed for commercial exploitation as income from house property or business.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Determination of Income Classification
The appeal focused on the singular issue of whether the income generated from a market complex, constructed for commercial purposes, should be categorized as income from house property or business. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) treated the income as income from house property, contrary to the assessee's claim of it being income from business. The assessee argued that the property was commercially exploited by a partnership firm formed specifically for this purpose, and the income derived was from conducting business activities rather than mere property letting. The assessee highlighted the historical context of the property's allocation, partnership formation, and consistent reporting of income as business since 1994. The bank and municipal authorities supported the commercial nature of the property, indicating a clear intention for business exploitation. The assessee contended that the expenses, interest, depreciation, and services provided were all indicative of commercial activities rather than passive property rental.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Legal Precedents
The legal arguments revolved around the interpretation of relevant case laws, specifically the judgments in the cases of National Storage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and Sambhu Investment Pvt. v. CIT. The assessee cited these cases to support the contention that income derived from commercial exploitation should be classified as business income. The Assessing Officer's reliance on these cases was challenged by the assessee, emphasizing the distinction between income from property letting and income from commercial activities. The ITAT noted that the case laws cited favored the assessee's position, highlighting the partners' pooled resources for commercial trade and business income taxation. The ITAT disagreed with the Assessing Officer's interpretation of the legal precedents and directed the acceptance of the assessee's return as income from business rather than house property.

Conclusion
The ITAT, after considering the arguments and legal precedents, overturned the decisions of the lower authorities and ruled in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the commercial nature of the property exploitation, the partnership's formation for business purposes, and the consistent reporting of income as business since the property's inception. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to accept the return filed by the assessee as income from business, setting aside the classification of income from house property.