9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from the date when the assessee received the order passed by the CIT(A) u/s 154. He has further submitted that the time taken in the proceedings for perusing the petition u/s 154 should be excluded while computing the limitation for filing the appeal. Thus, the ld AR pleated that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful but due to circumstances as explained and since the petition u/s 154 was finally disposed off vide order dated 17.7.2009, which was received by the assessee on 29.9.2009 the delay is due to time consumed in 154 proceedings. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Subhash Malik vs CIT Another reported in 325 ITR 243(Alld) and submitted that the Hon ble High Court has held that the assessee showed just and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal when proceedings u/s 154 took a long time which resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. 3.1 The ld DR on the other hand has vehemently opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that when the assessee received the original order of the CIT(A), then the appeal should have been filed within the limitation without waiting for disposal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s malafide or a device to cover up ulterior purposes then, a liberal approach has to be taken for considering the sufficiency of cause. 5 In the case of (supra) the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the similar circumstances has held in para 21 to 24 as under: It has been consistently held by the apex court that in matter of condonation of delay a liberal and pragmatic view should be taken. The apex court in Ramji Dass v. Mohan Singh [1978] ARC 496 has held that as far as possible the court s discretion should be exercised in favour of the hearing and not to shut out hearing. Thus, while deciding such an application a justice oriented approach is required to be adopted. The appellant has shown just and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, it cannot be said that the delay is malafide or intentional. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal dated July 8, 2005, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on the merits of the case after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law. 5.1 Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention as well as perused the relevant material on record. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that an identical issue has been considered and decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahalaxmi Sheela Predmises CHS Ltd in ITA Nos.784 to 786/M/2010 vide order dated 30.8.2011 and submitted that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee. 8.1 The ld DR on the other hand has submitted that since the assessee has received the license fee not for in the use of whole the premises but for terrace only. Further, the assessee is not the owner of the premises in question; therefore, the income on account of license fee has to be assessed as income from other sources. He has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 9 Having considered the rival contention and perusal of the relevant material on record, we find that an identical issue has been considered and decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal where one of us (Judicial; Member) is the party to the decision in the case of M/s Mahalaxmi Sheela Premises CHS Ltd (supra) wherein the issue was considered and decided in paras 6 to 9 as under: 6. In Bajaj Bhavan Owners Premises Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om house property and not as income from other sources The Tribunal while deciding the Issue has followed the order of the Tribunal in the case of MIs. Cuffe Parade Sainara Premises Co. Op. Society Ltd. supra. 7. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) and keeping in view the consistency while admitting the additional ground taken by the assessee hold that the letting out of terrace has to be assessed under the head Income From House Property as against Income From Other Sources assessed by the Assessing Officer and also allow deduction provided under section 24 of the Act and accordingly the additional ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal supra, we are of the view that the letting out of the terrace has to be assessed under the head income from house property subject to deduction u/s 24 of the Act as against income from other sources assessed by the Assessing Officer. We hold and order accordingly. The grounds taken by the assessee are therefore allowed. 8. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
