2014 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules - Treatment of income receivable Income from letting out of property - Whether the lease rental income received by the assessee is to be assessed under the head Business or under the head Income from Other Sources Held that - There is no merit in the Revenue contention as the action of the AO in excluding income from business and assessing the same under the head Other Sources is not proper the order of the CIT(A) is upheld that income has to be considered as business income - whether the income was treated as business income or income from other sources there is no effect on computation of income - Unless the income is taken under the head Income from House Property working of income does not vary whether income is considered under the head Business or Other Sources - CIT(A) did not admit any of the additional evidence as contended by the revenue Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Treatment of lease rental income - Business income or Income from Other Sources
2. Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules
3. Disallowance of share application money
4. Adjudication on set off of losses not raised by the assessee

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Treatment of lease rental income:
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing steel products, leased out its Sponge Iron Unit. The dispute revolved around whether the lease rental income should be assessed as business income or income from other sources. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated it as income from other sources, disallowing any expenditure. However, the Ld. CIT(A) disagreed, holding that the income should be considered as business income. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that even if treated as income from other sources, relevant expenditures should be allowed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee continued business activities and maintained licenses associated with the unit, supporting the classification of income as business income.

Issue 2 - Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A:
The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the A.O. before admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, as the additional evidence was not admitted. Therefore, the grounds related to this issue in all assessment years were rejected.

Issue 3 - Disallowance of share application money:
The A.O. considered share application money received as income from other sources. The Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on this issue, noting that it arose from earlier proceedings pending separately. The Tribunal agreed with this approach, dismissing the Revenue's grounds on this issue as the matter was to be considered in a different proceeding.

Issue 4 - Adjudication on set off of losses not raised by the assessee:
The Revenue raised concerns about the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicating on the set off of losses, which was not raised by the assessee. However, since this issue did not arise from the present assessment order and was pending in separate proceedings, the Tribunal deemed the Revenue's grounds on this issue as infructuous and dismissed them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings regarding the treatment of lease rental income as business income, rejected the grounds related to additional evidence under Rule 46A, dismissed the Revenue's contentions on share application money, and deemed the issue of set off of losses as infructuous. Consequently, all the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

← Previous Next →