2023 (6) TMI 518 - AT - Income Tax

Correct head of income - Rental income from fixture, fittings and amenities - Deduction u/s. 24(a) equal to 30% - separate agreements for let out of the property and for providing amenities - propionate Disallowance of 30% deduction claimed under the head income from house property against rent for fixture, fittings and amenities being part of permanent structure of the property and treating the rent received under the head income from other sources - HELD THAT - We are in complete agreement with the contention of DR that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the tax proceedings. At the same time we cannot ignore other related principle i.e. rule of consistency which has to be respected by the tax authorities until unless there is any new or different facts and circumstances for different assessment years are discernable. This principle has emerged from the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Radaswami Satsang 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT wherein their Lordship speaking for the apex court held that, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. Since, undisputedly facts and circumstances of AY 2012-13 2013-14 are identical and similar therefore rule of consistency again supports the claim of assessee that the rental income from amenities has to be treated as income from house property and assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act accordingly ground 2 of assessee is allowed. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - DR did not controvert rather candidly agreed to the submission of ld. AR based on the judgment of ACB India Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT and order of the Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI that the investment which did not yield any exempt income are not to be considered and only those investment which yield or brought exempt income to the assessee are to be considered for computing disallowance under rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Therefore ground no. 3 of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the Assessing Officer that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules, for arriving the average value of investment, only those investment are to be considered which yielded exempt income during the year. Accordingly, ground no. 3 of assessee is allowed in the manner as indicate above.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of rental income from amenities as "Income from House Property" or "Income from Other Sources."
2. Disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Summary:

Issue 1: Treatment of Rental Income from Amenities

The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision upholding the addition of Rs. 5,76,000/- by the Assessing Officer, who treated the rental income from amenities as "Income from Other Sources" rather than "Income from House Property." The assessee argued that the rental income from amenities should be treated as "Income from House Property," as it was in previous assessment years (AY 2012-13 and 2013-14). The assessee cited various judgments, including CIT vs. Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. and Sultan Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, to support their claim. The CIT(A) had previously accepted this treatment for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, but reversed it for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal noted that the premises and amenities were inseparable and should be treated together as "Income from House Property." The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, ruling in favor of the assessee and allowing the claim for deduction under section 24(a) of the Act.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962

The assessee argued, and the Senior DR did not contest, that only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year should be considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D. This argument was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT and the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider only those investments that yielded exempt income during the year for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed on ground no. 2, treating the rental income from amenities as "Income from House Property" and allowing the deduction under section 24(a). Ground no. 3 was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to consider only investments that yielded exempt income for disallowance under Rule 8D.