2014 (6) TMI 612 - HC - Income Tax

Income from house property or business income - Rule of consistency Held that - The income derived has to be treated as income from property - in so far as the office equipments computers furniture / fixtures and motor car are concerned the Tribunal as also the Commissioner referred to the fact that the grievance raised before the Tribunal as also the CIT was considered in the case of the very Assessee - the receipt of the charges for use of office equipments have been rightly termed as business income - the rule of consistency has not been blindly applied by the Tribunal - once the Department has assessed the income for the preceding year as business income then without anything being brought on record to deviate from the finding the stand of the revenue cannot be accepted thus no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Tribunal's order dated 25th February 2011 for assessment year 2003-04.
2. Whether income from property and charges for office equipments, etc., should be treated as business income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision confirming the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2003-04. The Appellant argued that substantial questions of law were raised, citing the Supreme Court decision in Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax. The Appellant contended that income from property should not be considered business income based on a Calcutta High Court case. The Tribunal was urged to follow the principle from the referenced case due to similarities in arrangements between the Assessee and a sister concern.

2. The High Court rejected the Appellant's contentions. It upheld the concurrent findings of the Commissioner and Tribunal that income from the house property should be treated as property income. Regarding charges for office equipments, computers, furniture, and motor car, it was noted that in a prior assessment year, the Assessing Officer had accepted these hire charges as business income for the same Assessee. The Court emphasized consistency in the approach of the Assessing Officer, stating that a different view could not be taken now. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle of consistency and the nature of the charges for hiring office equipments, which were deemed as business income.

3. The Court clarified that the rule of consistency was not applied blindly, but based on identical facts and previous assessment outcomes. It emphasized that the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Appellant was not disregarded, but its application was context-specific. The Court highlighted that the rule of consistency was correctly applied when facts were similar, and there was no evidence to deviate from the previous assessment findings. Additionally, the Court dismissed the relevance of a Delhi High Court judgment cited by the Appellant, as it did not apply to the current case.

4. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and dismissed it without costs. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of income from property and charges for office equipments, computers, furniture, and motor car as business income based on the principle of consistency and previous assessment outcomes.