9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant is not the absolute owner of the property Lakkshmi Arcade . The sale deed as well as the related documents shows that the property is owned jointly by the appellant and her husband. The contention of the Department that in the land revenue records the name of the appellant alone is shown cannot be made the basis for confirmation of the demand, especially when there is no proof that the village records have been updated. It is not disputed that the income by way of rent is received by them separately and reflected in their income tax returns separately. This being the case, the mere reliance on the land revenue records is not correct. When the property is owned jointly by the appellant and her husband, the demand of service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey Nos. T.S. No.65, bearing postal address of Plot No. A/10, Door No. 18, 11th Cross Main Door, Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirappalli - 620 018. The property was purchased by her along with her husband Shri. M.S. Paramasivam vide sale deed No. 609/1992 dated 29.01.1992. From the date of the above purchase, the appellant and her husband have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as joint owners. She along with her husband constructed the commercial complex which is now known as "Lakkshmi Arcade". Even now, the said complex is in the name of both Smt. P. Dhanalakshmi (the appellant herein) and her husband Shri. M.S. Paramasivam. 2.2 She along with her husband entered into lease agreements with various tenants for rentin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly. In view of the above, it is very much clear that the liability to pay service tax on the rental income received from "Lakkshmi Arcade" vests with the appellant alone. Therefore, the demand of service tax on the appellant, who is the legal owner of the property, is correct and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellant has argued that she is a joint owner/co-owner of the property namely "Lakkshmi Arcade" along with her husband Shri. M.S. Paramasivam. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has produced the English translation of the sale deed dated 29.01.1992. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the property has been purchased jointly by the appellant and her husband Shri. M.S. Paramasivam. Several lease agreements have also been produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old limit during the disputed period, then the appellant would not be liable to pay service tax. 9. From the above discussions, we hold that the demand as such cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. However, the fact as to whether the demand made against the appellant is well within the threshold limit during the disputed period requires verification. For this limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside. 10. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law with the limited direction to verify whether the rent received by the appellant would fall within the threshold limit during the disputed period. If beyond the threshold limit, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
