9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 461 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of receipts Rental income - Income from house property treated as business income - Order passed u/s 144 of the Act Held that - The issue as to whether the rental income is to be considered under the head Income from House Property or not has to be considered in the light of the facts for the first AY i.e. AY 2002-03 - As the decision for AY 2002-03 will have consequential effect in the subsequent AY.s thus, in the interest of justice the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering such evidences as may be placed before him. If the assessee fails to co-operate the AO and/or do not furnish the requisite documents as may be required by him, the AO will be at liberty to decide and pass the fresh Assessment Order as per law on the basis of the papers available before him by a reasoned order - the orders of the FAA for all the three AY.s under consideration are set-aside to the file of the AO Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of rental income as income from house property versus business income. 2. Disallowance of expenses claimed for earning rental income. 3. Disallowance of interest on loans. 4. Utilization of loans for construction activities. 5. Levying of interest under Section 234B and 234C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment of Rental Income as Income from House Property versus Business Income: The assessee-company contended that the rental income received from Mandvi Bank should be treated as business income. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that the rental income should be assessed as income from house property. The AO noted that the assessee had constructed several commercial units, some of which were unsold and let out. The AO relied on various judgments, including Chugandas & Co. and Shambhu Investments Pvt Ltd., to conclude that the rental income should be treated as income from house property. The CIT(A) upheld this view, emphasizing that the nature of the agreement was more akin to a lease than a business activity. 2. Disallowance of Expenses Claimed for Earning Rental Income: The assessee claimed expenses for earning the rental income, which were disallowed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The AO found no business activity during the relevant years and held that the expenses were not incurred for any ongoing business. The CIT(A) supported this view, stating that since the rental income was assessed as income from house property, the related expenses could not be allowed as business expenses. 3. Disallowance of Interest on Loans: The AO disallowed the interest claimed on loans taken from Mandvi Bank, stating that the loan was not utilized for construction activities. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the interest could not be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) or 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, as the loan was not used for business purposes or for acquiring the property given on rent. 4. Utilization of Loans for Construction Activities: The AO and CIT(A) both found that the loans taken by the assessee were not utilized for construction activities. The CIT(A) specifically noted that the construction activity was completed, and the loan was not used for any business revival or ongoing construction. 5. Levying of Interest under Section 234B and 234C: The AO levied interest under Sections 234B and 234C for shortfall in advance tax payments. This was a standard procedural matter and was not specifically contested in detail in the judgment. Conclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the issues in all the appeals were interconnected and decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years (2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05). The ITAT directed the AO to reconsider the issues afresh, giving the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and cooperate in the proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 12th March 2014, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes and directing a fresh assessment by the AO.
|
