2019 (2) TMI 654 - HC - Income Tax

Income from house property - dispute before the Rent Control Tribunal was in respect of one of the properties which had been trespassed by M/s. Bank of Punjab Ltd., and the compensation/ mesne profit/ damages granted in respect thereof (L40) could not be compared to the rent received in respect of all other shops/premises from protected tenants - Tribunal held that in view of the fact that all the other shops/ premises of which the rent was sought to be enhanced, were covered by the Rent Control Act and the rent could not be in excess of the standard rent determined under the Rent Control Act - Held that - We find that the submission on behalf of the Revenue proceeds on an incorrect fundamental premise viz. that the Addl. Rent Control Tribunal had fixed a rent of ₹ 1.42 lakhs per month in respect of (L40) premises, occupied by M/s. Bank of Punjab. This is factually incorrect. The amount of ₹ 1.42 lakhs per month were directed to be paid by M/s. Bank of Punjab in eviction proceedings as mesne profits/ damages. All the other premises are let out to persons who are protected by the Rent Control Act. Moreover, no order has been passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, fixing higher rent in respect of the other premises nor has the Revenue brought on record any evidence of the other premises being let out by the Respondent at more than the declared rent. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal for the four Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. Interpretation of whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of income from house property ignoring the order of the Additional Rent Tribunal.

Analysis:
The Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were filed to challenge the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. The primary question raised by the Revenue in all the appeals was whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the deletion of income from house property as determined by the CIT(A), disregarding the order of the Additional Rent Tribunal. The Respondent, who owned several shops in a building in New Delhi, had let out the shops to tenants protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act. One of the shops, L40, was sublet by a protected tenant to another entity. Legal proceedings were initiated for eviction, resulting in a directive for the subletter to deposit a specific amount monthly. The Assessing Officer calculated the rental income based on this amount for all properties, leading to a significant increase from the declared income.

The Respondent appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against this enhancement, arguing that the compensation awarded in the eviction proceedings for one specific property could not be generalized to all other properties rented to protected tenants. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the compensation awarded for the specific property could not be equated to the rent received from other tenants. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), emphasizing that the compensation awarded was specific to the trespassing incident and could not be applied to all properties covered under the Rent Control Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, stating that without specific orders for other properties, the Assessing Officer could not extrapolate the compensation as rent receivable for all properties.

The Revenue contended that the compensation determined by the Rent Control Tribunal for one property should apply to all properties, but the High Court disagreed. The High Court clarified that the compensation awarded was for a specific incident and could not be generalized to all properties rented to protected tenants. As no evidence was presented to show higher rents for other properties, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision for all Assessment Years. The common question raised in the appeals was deemed not to raise any substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of all four Appeals without costs.