2016 (2) TMI 1211 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - as per the lease agreement there does not exist any building on the land leased out - Held that - As per the letters of 05.09.2015 and 10.11.2015 of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., (erstwhile Larson and Toubro Limited, the tenant of the assessee) and the assessee s AO, it now stands admitted by the assessee s tenant that there does exist a building on the land in question and thus, it is this building alongwith the land, which was leased out to the said tenant by the assessee, though the lease agreement was qua the land. The building is used for cement storage as per mutual understanding. M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Limited has also admitted that the photographs of the building are correct. Since these documents and photographs go to the root of the dispute, they are necessary to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, these documents are admitted in evidence. Now, since the orders of the taxing authorities found as their basis, the fact that as per lease agreement, there was no building in existence on the land and the erstwhile M/s. Larson and Toubro Limited, now, M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Limited, have admitted of the building existing on the land in question, we remit this matter to the file of the AO to be decided afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Assessment under section 143(3)/147, Jurisdiction of AO in issuing notice under section 148, Determination of income, Assessment of rental income, Deduction under section 24(a), Consideration of written submissions, Initiation of penalty proceedings, Charging of interest under section 234D, Withdrawal of interest under section 244, Arbitrariness of authority's order, Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), Compliance with law and facts, Opportunity for proper hearing.

Assessment under section 143(3)/147:
The assessee appealed against the assessment order for the assessment year 2006-07, challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) in framing the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had reopened the case based on discrepancies in the lease rental income declared by the assessee HUF. The AO treated the lease rental income as income from other sources instead of income from House Property. The Tribunal noted the discrepancies and directed a reassessment by the AO considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

Jurisdiction of AO in issuing notice under section 148:
The assessee contended that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by issuing a notice under section 148. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee and was rejected accordingly.

Determination of income:
The AO determined the income at a higher amount based on the reassessment, considering the lease rental income as income from other sources. The Tribunal directed a fresh assessment considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

Assessment of rental income:
The AO assessed the lease rental income as income from other sources instead of income from House Property. The Tribunal directed a reassessment based on additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

Deduction under section 24(a):
The assessee had claimed a deduction under section 24(a) of the Act, which the AO deemed inadmissible as the lease rental income was incorrectly declared under the wrong head. The Tribunal directed a reassessment by the AO considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

Consideration of written submissions:
The assessee submitted written representations regarding the incorrect assessment of lease rental income. The Tribunal directed a reassessment by the AO considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

Initiation of penalty proceedings:
The penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were challenged by the assessee. However, this ground was not specifically addressed in the judgment.

Charging of interest under section 234D:
The charging of interest under section 234D was challenged by the assessee. However, this ground was not specifically addressed in the judgment.

Withdrawal of interest under section 244:
The assessee challenged the withdrawal of interest under section 244. However, this ground was not specifically addressed in the judgment.

Arbitrariness of authority's order:
The assessee contended that the order of the authority was arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal directed a reassessment by the AO considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c):
The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee. However, this ground was not specifically addressed in the judgment.

Compliance with law and facts:
The assessee argued that the order was against the law and facts of the case. The Tribunal directed a reassessment by the AO considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

Opportunity for proper hearing:
The assessee contended that proper opportunity should have been allowed. The Tribunal directed a reassessment by the AO considering additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the existence of a building on the leased land.

---