2019 (6) TMI 283 - AT - Income Tax

Correct head of income - rental income on sub-letting - Income from house property or income from other sources - ownership of property - HELD THAT - There are two pre-conditions for charging the income as income from house property u/s 22 . Firstly the assessee must be the owner of the property. Also the property must not be occupied by the assessee for the purposes of his business or profession. In other words the property should be a residential property. In the present case neither of the above conditions of section 22 of the Act stands satisfied. The assessee as discussed is not the owner of the property in question. Too the property is commercial in nature. Therefore the provisions of section 22 of the Act are not at all applicable. Hence the addition made as income from house property is not sustainable. Accordingly the order under appeal is reversed and the addition is deleted.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rent Deed and Subletting
2. Classification of Rental Income
3. Conditions for Income from House Property
4. Disputed Rent Payment and TDS
5. Disallowance and Addition of Taxable Income
6. Legal Sustainability of Assessment Order

Interpretation of Rent Deed and Subletting:
The appellant appealed against the CIT (Appeals) order, arguing that the Rent Deed clause and the intention to sublet the warehouse were not considered. The appellant claimed that the rental income should be classified as Business Income, not House Property Income, due to subletting. However, the A.O. found no mention of subletting in the lease agreement and requested proof. The appellant failed to provide evidence, leading to the addition of the rental income as House Property Income.

Classification of Rental Income:
The A.O. rejected the appellant's claim of not owning the property, adding the rental income as House Property Income. The CIT (A) upheld this decision, stating that the lease agreement did not mention subletting, and the appellant failed to prove non-ownership. However, the appellant presented a Demand Notice confirming the property ownership by another entity. Despite this evidence, the CIT (A) confirmed the addition.

Conditions for Income from House Property:
Section 22 of the Act outlines conditions for income classification. As the appellant was not the property owner and the property was commercial, not residential, the provisions of section 22 were deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the addition as 'income from house property' was deemed unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.

Disputed Rent Payment and TDS:
The A.O. disputed the rent payment calculation, leading to a disallowance and addition of taxable income. The appellant chose not to press this ground, resulting in its rejection. The A.O. emphasized the need for proof of subletting to avoid treating the income as House Property Income.

Disallowance and Addition of Taxable Income:
The disallowance and addition of taxable income were deemed incorrect and unjustified by the appellant. However, the A.O. and CIT (A) justified the addition based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims regarding property ownership and subletting.

Legal Sustainability of Assessment Order:
The appellant argued that the assessment order was not legally sustainable. However, the Tribunal reversed the order, deleting the addition of income from house property due to non-compliance with Section 22 conditions. The appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the importance of property ownership and usage for income classification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the interpretation of the Rent Deed, conditions for income classification, and the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims. The decision highlighted the significance of property ownership and usage in determining the nature of rental income for taxation purposes.

← Previous Next →