9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the proviso to section 275 (1) (a) as the CIT (A)'s order regarding the above assessment had already been received on 21. 08. 2007. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai erred in not considering the fact that penalty proceedings which were based on the relevant assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 19-03-2002 was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 275 (1)(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai erred in dismissing the ground that the issue of taxing rent income under the head "Income from House Property" instead of as "Business In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty in respect of an addition which was highly disputable. Since the appellant was rendering services along with renting of premises, whether the income should be taxed as 'business income' or as 'income from house property' is a highly disputable legal issue. No penalty can be levied for additions made on disputable legal grounds. 7. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. 8. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal. Brief facts of the case. 2. Assessee, filed its return of income on 24. 08. 1999 declaring loss of Rs. 1. 39 lacs. Assessing Officer (AO)finalising the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 19. 03. 2002 determining the income at Rs. 73. 29 lacs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He allowed 1/4threpairs while calculating the house-property-income. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee again preferred an appeal before the FAA. Vide his order dated 23. 08. 2007, he directed the AO not to compute ALV for the vacant portion of the property. Challenging the order of the FAA, AO filed an appeal before the Tribunal. ITA, vide its order dated 20. 01. 2010, upheld the order of the FAA holding that rental income of Rs. 21. 44 lacs was assessable u/s. 23(1)(b) of the Act. 2. b. Meanwhile, AO passed order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 25. 08. 2010 levying a penalty of Rs. 6, 58, 794/-. Penalty was levied on the issue that rental income of Rs. 21. 44 lacs was assessable under the head of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that till the AY. 1998-99 rental income from the Indore and Mumbai offices of the assessee was being shown under the head business income and same was assessed by the AO under the same head. In the year 1998-99, AO assessed the income form let out properties as IFHP and stand taken by the AO was confirmed by the ITAT vide its order dated 21. 02. 2003. As the assessee did not challenged the order of the Tribunal before the jurisdictional High Court, so as far as the the issue of head of income is concerned it attained finality. From the records it is found that return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 24. 08. 1999, much much before the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
