9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in view of the provisions of s. 22 of the IT Act which reads as under: "The annual value of property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax under the head income from house property". With advantage the AO also quoted the decision of apex Court in the case of Karanpur Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) at p. 377, which reads as under: "Ownership of property and leasing it out may be done as a part of business or it may be done as land owner. Whether it is the one or the other must necessarily depend upon the object with which the act is done. It is not that no company can own property and enjoy it as property whether by itself or by giving the use of it to another on rent. Where this happens the appropriate head to apply his income from property is s. 9 of IT Act, 1922 even though the company may be doing extensive business otherwise." The AO also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the assessee has filed a thick paper book containing written submissions of the assessee for the respective assessment years under consideration, explanation filed before the Dy. CIT, explanation filed before the CIT(A), order of the Tribunal in the case of D.C. Routray for asst. yr. 1981-82, agreement copy with the tenant filed before the AO, reply to show-cause notice dt. 13th Dec., 2000, filed on 19th Dec., 2000, reply to notice under s. 142(1) dt. 14th Oct., 1999 and 9th Oct., 1999, lease agreement with B.N. Naik and L.P. Naik filed with the AO on 26th Dec., 2000, and statement of rental receipt and expenditure. After considering the submissions of both the parties and on our careful perusal of material available on record, including the paper book filed by the assessee and the various citations of different Courts made before us, we find force in the submissions made on behalf of the Department. The conclusion of the AO, in his order, is based on proper appreciation of material available on record and various decisions of Courts and the apex Court as detailed in his order. The decision of the Tribunal relied on by the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) was not correct in deleting the addition made under s. 69 of the IT Act of an amount of Rs. 9,598. The CIT(A) has dealt with this issue vide paras 8 to 8.4. For the cogent reasons given by him in his order we uphold deletion of this amount by the CIT(A) and accordingly this ground of the Revenue is rejected. 9. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 in asst. yr. 1995-96 are general and need no discussion and decision. Asst. yr. 1996-97: 10. The first ground urged in this appeal relates to treatment of rental income from Gitanjali complex. In view of our decision on this issue in asst. yr. 1995-96 vide paras 2 to 5 above, this ground of the Revenue is allowed. 11. In the second ground the Revenue disputes that the CIT(A) was not correct in directing to allow interest of Rs. 25,000 which was disallowed by the AO. A similar issue for the preceding asst. yr. 1995-96 was decided in favour of the assessee and hence this ground of the Revenue is rejected. 12. The next ground No. 3 is directed against the direction of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition made under s. 69 of the IT Act for an amount of Rs. 2,68,309. Similar issue was dealt with by us in the asst. yr. 1995-96 and for the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the CIT(A) was not correct in directing to allow certain deductions amounting to Rs. 1,44,000 out of composite receipts under the head business receipt from house property. A similar issue was decided by us in favour of the assessee in asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1997-98 and for the reasons stated therein, this ground of the Revenue is rejected. 20. In ground No. 3 the Revenue agitates that the CIT(A) was not correct in directing to allow depreciation as per law in respect of Gitanjali complex by treating the same as commercial asset. In view of our decision in asst. yr. 1995-96 directing to treat the rental income from Gitanjali complex as income from 'house property', the present claim of the assessee for depreciation which was allowed by the CIT(A) is not justified and not as per law. In the circumstances the order of the CIT(A) on the issue is reversed and that of the AO is restored. This ground of the Revenue is accordingly allowed. 21. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are general in nature and need no decision. 22. In ground No. 1 the assessee merely supports the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made under gold and jewellery business, making charges account, interest on loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
