2018 (4) TMI 495 - AT - Income Tax

Contribution receipts of sinking fund from the tenants - liable to be brought to tax as the income of the assessee under head income from house property - Held that - As relying on case Mukesh D. Ambani vs. ACIT 2005 (4) TMI 529 - ITAT MUMBAI contributions of the tenants of the property towards sinking fund cannot be assessed as rental income of the assessee. We thus finding no reason to take a different view, therefore, uphold the deletion of the addition on the said count by the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of the claim of the assessee in respect of interest expenditure u/s 24(b) - Held that - A.O while framing the assessment was not oblivious of the fact that the identical issue was decided by the CIT(A) in the assessee s own case for the immediately preceding year, viz. A.Y 2010-11, but however, had disallowed the claim of deduction of interest expenditure of ₹ 33,10,656/- raised by the assessee u/s 24(b), only for the reason that the revenue had not accepted the order of the CIT(A) on the issue under consideration in the preceding year, viz. A.Y 2010-11 and had assailed the same before the Tribunal. Deliberated on the facts and are unable to comprehend that now when the similar issue involving identical facts had been adjudicated by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee, therefore, how a contrary view could have been taken by the A.O, despite remaining well convesant of the aforesaid state of affairs. As persuade ourselves to accept the view taken by the A.O for disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 24(b), therein leading to a consequential addition of ₹ 33,10,656/- in its hands. We had deliberated on the observations of the CIT(A) and are persuaded to be in agreement with the view taken by him. Notional interest in respect of interest free refundable deposits received by the assessee from its tenants - Held that - In the case of CIT Vs. J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. (2000 (6) TMI 9 - BOMBAY High Court) as observed that as the actual rent received or receivable by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid property was found to be in excess of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to have been let out from year to year, and the ALV had been determined under Sec. 23(1)(b), therefore, no addition in respect of the notional interest was called for in the hands of the assessee. On the observations recorded by the CIT(A) and are persuaded to be in agreement with the view taken by him. As the CIT(A) had followed the view taken by his predecessor in the assessee s own case for the immediately preceding year, viz. A.Y 2010-11, therefore, no infirmity emerges from his order. Nothing has been placed on record or averred before us which could persuade us to conclude that the view taken by the CIT(A) in the assessee own case for A.Y 2010-11 had been set aside by the higher appellate forums and thus no more holds the ground. We thus finding ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A), therefore, uphold the deletion of the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the sinking fund reimbursement received by the assessee from its tenants.
2. Disallowance of the interest on borrowed capital under Sec. 24(b) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of the notional interest on the interest-free refundable deposits to the income of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of the Sinking Fund Reimbursement:
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order, which held that the sinking fund is not the income of the assessee. The A.O. argued that the contribution to the sinking fund collected from tenants should be treated as rental income. The CIT(A), however, relied on the decision of the ITAT in Mukesh D. Ambani vs. ACIT, where it was held that such contributions should not be considered as rental income. The CIT(A) concluded that the sinking fund collected for maintenance or other works does not form part of the annual value of the property and hence cannot be taxed as income from house property. The tribunal upheld this view, agreeing that contributions towards the sinking fund cannot be assessed as rental income.

2. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Capital:
The A.O. disallowed the interest expenditure claimed by the assessee under Sec. 24(b), arguing that the loan was for working capital requirements and not for acquiring the property. The CIT(A) reversed this, citing a previous decision in the assessee's favor for A.Y 2010-11, where it was established that the borrowed funds were indeed used for acquiring the property. The tribunal noted that the A.O. was aware of the CIT(A)'s earlier decision but chose to disallow the claim based on the pending appeal. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the interest on borrowed capital used for acquiring the property is deductible under Sec. 24(b).

3. Addition of Notional Interest on Interest-Free Refundable Deposits:
The A.O. added notional interest on interest-free refundable deposits to the assessee's income, arguing that it should form part of the expected rent. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, referencing the assessee's case for A.Y 2010-11, where it was decided that if the actual rent received exceeds the reasonable expected rent, no addition for notional interest is warranted. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the actual rent received was higher than the annual lettable value and thus, no notional interest should be added.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all counts. The sinking fund contributions were not considered rental income, the interest on borrowed capital was deemed deductible, and no addition for notional interest on deposits was warranted. The tribunal's decision was based on consistency with previous rulings and the lack of new evidence to warrant a different conclusion.