2014 (11) TMI 352 - HC - Income Tax

Power to invoke section 263 by Commissioner Error of law appratent from record or not - Allowability of deduction @ 30% of annual rent u/s 24(a) Held that - The Tribunal held that the issue of rental income from the business center has been extensively examined, discussed and then adjudicated by the AO - As against the claim of that being income from house property and not business income, the AO has taken a view that it is assessable as income under the head house property - whether an income can be bifurcated as such and whether a rental income and income derived by providing certain services such as business center could be equated or not was prima facie debatable - whether the reliance placed by the AO on this judgment to arrive at the conclusion was well placed or whether he should have considered the matter in the light of the Special Bench decision is thus an aspect which has influenced the Tribunal in concluding that the ingredients of Section 263 are not satisfied - That is a possible view and which could have been taken - That the said view has been taken by itself was therefore not enough to invoke Section 263 is a conclusion reached - thus, there could be no reasons to state that the order is perverse or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding deduction of rent.
2. Assessment of rental income from a business center as income from house property.
3. Consideration of different judgments and decisions in determining the nature of income.
4. Applicability of Special Bench decision in Atmaram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint CIT.
5. Review of the Tribunal's order and Commissioner's powers under Section 263.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 concerning the deduction of rent. The Commissioner invoked Section 263, contending that the Assessing Officer's decision to allow a deduction on a sum of &8377; 4,00,71,000 at 30% instead of &8377; 2,14,82,000 was erroneous. The Commissioner argued that the income from the business center should have been segregated from the rental income, as they were received separately by the Assessee.

2. The Tribunal's order was challenged based on the assessment of rental income from a business center as income from house property. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously considered this aspect, leading to further appeals. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's view, influenced by the Supreme Court judgment in Shambhu Investment Ltd. vs CIT, was debatable and not conclusively erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.

3. The case involved a detailed consideration of different judgments and decisions to determine the nature of income. The Tribunal referred to its own order in a separate appeal for the same assessment year, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reliance on the Shambhu Investment Ltd. judgment was reasonable, given the debatable nature of segregating rental income from business services income.

4. The applicability of the Special Bench decision in Atmaram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint CIT was also discussed. The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of this decision in assessing whether the income could be bifurcated and whether the rental income and income from business services could be equated. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's view, guided by the Supreme Court and Special Bench decisions, was reasonable and not subject to invoking Section 263.

5. Upon review of the Tribunal's order and the Commissioner's powers under Section 263, the High Court found that the reasons cited by the Tribunal for not invoking Section 263 were valid and not legally flawed. The Court dismissed the Appeal, emphasizing that the limited examination did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim or deduction sought by the Assessee, nor did it indicate a stance on the Revenue's position.