2021 (9) TMI 967 - AT - Income Tax

Correct head of income - letting out of the land independently which is part of the business asset of the assessee - business income or income from house property - HELD THAT - Assessee was using the bungalow and land together for the film production as part of business assets. Since the film production is stopped, it has separated the bungalow and vacant land. It uses the bungalow for storage for its own purpose and leases the vacant land not on the regular basis but based on the requirement of the other production houses. It leases only the vacant land which it was earlier utilized for its own business. Just because, it let out only the vacant land the type of assets will not change - it will remain as business assets. Since, it is part of total asset of the assessee. The assessee claims depreciation only on bungalow and not on vacant land. When the assessee let out not on regular but based on the requirement of the industry, it can only be treated as income from letting out business assets. Moreover, the assessee demonstrated that the land can be separated and used to earn independent income. We notice that the vacant land cannot reasonably expected let from year to year basis. Therefore, the annual value cannot be reasonably estimated or expected. The vacant land is continuing to be used or usable for film production. The same land when assessee in case, decided to continue with the film production, will be used for the assessee s business as business asset. Therefore, temporary let out of the vacant land and only be part of business income. Therefore, in the given case the land is separable from the bungalow to let out independently, thus the land can be treated as separate asset and this letting out of the land independently cannot be part of the income from these property. With the above observations, in our considered view, the letting out of the land independently which is part of the business asset of the assessee can be treated as income from business only. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from renting out property: Whether it should be treated as 'Income from House Property' or 'Business Income'.
2. Applicability of principles of consistency in tax treatment across different assessment years.
3. Eligibility for deductions under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Income from Renting Out Property:
The primary issue revolves around the classification of income derived from renting out a property. The assessee declared receipts from hiring a studio under 'other income' and brought it to tax under 'Income from House Property'. The Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed, treating the income as 'Business Income' based on previous assessment orders for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The AO observed that the assessee claimed deductions under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act at 30% and also claimed property tax deductions, along with several business expenses pertaining to the studio.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the property in question was land at Dahisar, rented out without any additional facilities, thus not qualifying as 'Income from House Property' under Section 22 of the Act. The Tribunal also supported this view, stating that the vacant land, although appurtenant to a bungalow used for storage, was let out independently and thus should be treated as 'Business Income'.

2. Applicability of Principles of Consistency:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of consistency, as similar grounds were decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The CIT(A) in those years had treated the income from rented land as 'Income from House Property'. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)-7, Mumbai, had misread the provisions of Section 22 of the Act in those years. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of consistency could not be followed when the foundational facts and legal interpretations were incorrect.

3. Eligibility for Deductions under Section 24(b):
The assessee claimed deductions under Section 24(b) for interest on borrowed capital. The AO and CIT(A) both denied these deductions, as they treated the income as 'Business Income' rather than 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal upheld this denial, stating that since the income was classified as 'Business Income', the provisions of Section 24(b) were not applicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, agreeing with the AO and CIT(A) that the income from renting out the land should be treated as 'Business Income' and not 'Income from House Property'. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to deductions under Section 24(b). The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, the nature of the property rented out, and the business activities of the assessee. The principles of consistency were not applied due to the incorrect legal interpretation in previous years.