9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically dealing with the cases relating to "palace". This significant departure of the words in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act and Section 23 also suggest that the Legislature did not intend to tax portion of the "palace" by splitting it in parts. It is a settled rule of interpretation that if two Statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then it is not permissible to apply the language of one Statute to other while interpreting such Statutes. Similarly, once the assessee is able to fulfill the conditions specified in section for claiming exemption under the Act then provisions dealing with grant of exemption should be construed liberally because the exemptions are for the benefit of the assessee. See Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota Thr. Maharao Brij Raj Singh, Kota Versus [2016 (12) TMI 418 - SUPREME COURT] - ITA No. 261 & 262/JP/2017, C.O. Nos. 20/JP/2017 And C.O. Nos. 21/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM For The Assessee : Shri B.B.Maheshwari (C.A.) For The Revenue : Shri R.A.Verma (Addl. CIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The assessee has also filed cross objection against each of two appeals filed by the Revenue wherein the respective grounds of the appeals are as under:- C.O. No. 21/JP/2017 (Ground of Assessee s appeal):- i) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts is not accepting also the alternative ground that besides allowing exemption u/sec. 10(19A), the rental income of Ummed Bhawan Palace from structure and land requisitioned by defence department is neither accrued nor arose nor received this year, as the rental is in dispute in writ petition before Hon ble Rajasthan High Court filed by Defence Department and quantum thereof is neither settled nor determined at all. Hence not taxable on this score in alternative ground also. ii) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts not allowed deduction of Senior Citizen quantum of exemption as provided under Schedule First of Sec. 2 (Part 1) of I.T.Act 1961 as it is allowable in the status as of Individual , as the appellant age is more than 65 Years old. The same deserves to be allowed. C.O. No. 20/JP/2017 (Ground of Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awan Palace (including rental income of land structure requisitioned by defence department and treating the same as income from house property, it is seen that my predecessor (CIT(A) vide order in appeal no. 579/13-14 dt. 27/06/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 decided this issue in favour of the appellant by mentioning that the appellant was entitled for exemption u/s 10(19A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 against the receipt of rent compensation for the properties in question. As regards Ground No. 4, it had been held by my predecessor CIT(A), if the said income is finally held to be income from House Property, then assessee will be entitled for statutory deductions on the same. This ground of appeal was therefore, partly allowed. It may however, be of note that the Hon ble Supreme Court vide Civil appeal No. 2812 of 2016 order dated 05.12.2016 in the case of the appellant himself has allowed the appeal held that: The appellant is allowed exemption u/s 10(19A) of the I.T. Act in respect of entire rental income of Umed Bhawan Kota (from defence department others). Since the Apex court has settled this issue, the addition on accrued income for ₹ 56,19,252/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,00,000/- already given by the A.O. This Ground of appeal is partly allowed. As regards Ground of appeal no. 9 related to rebate for senior citizen, following the decision of my predecessor in appeal no. 579/13-14 for A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dt. 27.06.2014, I hold that the appellant is not entitled to deduction u/s 88B of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the decision of the A.O. is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. We now refer to the latest order of the Coordinate Bench for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 (in ITA No. 596, 597 CO 29,30/JP/2014 dated 28/04/2016) and find that identical grounds of appeal were raised for consideration before the Coordinate Bench and the relevant findings on each of the grounds are as reproduced below: 4. Now the Revenue challenged the issue in year under consideration but both the parties fairly accepted that this issue is covered in assessee s own case in ITA No. 610 to 613/JP/2010 in preceding years, therefore, we dismiss the revenue appeal on this ground. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In past, similar additions were made by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ources and not business income. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the Coordinate Bench given in the assessee s own case in A.Y. 2007-08. The appeal on this ground is allowed. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee consistently showing rental income from the commercial property under the head business and profession, which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) not only in this year but in the preceding years also. The learned D.R. had not controverted the findings of the learned CIT(A), therefore, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 22. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The present issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 147 148/JP/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02 and 20% expenses have been estimated by the Coordinate Bench. The facts are identical during the year under consideration. Thus, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. Both the parties agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the aforesaid decision, Rajasthan High Court in the case of the appellant herein in H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji, (supra) answered the question in favour of the appellant for the assessment years (1973-74 to 1977-78). 32. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharatchandra Banjdeo (supra) and the one taken in the case of the appellant in Maharao Bhim Singhji's case (supra) by rightly placing reliance on Bharatchandra Banjdeo's case (supra) is the correct view and we find no good ground to take any other view. 34. We find that in Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act, the Legislature has used the expression palace for considering the grant of exemption to the Ruler whereas on the same subject, the Legislature has used different expression namely any one building in Section 5 (iii) of the Wealth Tax Act. We cannot ignore this distinction while interpreting Section 10(19A) which, in our view, is significant. 35. In our considered opinion, if the Legislature intended to spilt the Palace in part(s), alike houses for taxing the subject, it would have said so by employing appropriate language in Section 10(19A) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
