9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, Ahmedabad has concluded that the threshold exemption is available for each individual co-owner. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeals Nos. ST/30216-30221/2016 - A/30628–30633/2019 - Dated:- 10-7-2019 - Mr. S.S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent/AR for the appellant Shri Maninder, CA for the Respondents. ORDER PER: MR. S.S. GARG 1. Revenue has filed these six appeals against the common impugned order, dt. 30.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After following due process, the original authority confirmed the tax demand to the extent of ₹ 23,82,416/- along with interest under section 73(2) and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under section 77 for contravention of various provisions and also imposed equal penalty under section 78 with an option to pay the reduced penalty within time frame specified. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely after deducting the tax. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Consultant appearing for the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that the said issue of eligibility for threshold exemption by each of the co-owner has been considered by various Benches of the Tribunal and has ruled in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that this issue is no more res-integra and has been settled by the following decisions of the Tribunal. (a) A. Akhila vs. CCE [2018(10)TMI 559 CESTAT-Chennai] (b) Anil Saini Others vs. CCE, CESTAT Chandigarh. (c) CCE vs. Kushiram M Ratanchandani others [2017(10)TMI 1190- CESTAT, Ahmedabad. (d) Sarobjen Khusalchan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited supra. Further, we find that in the case of Sarobjen Khusalchand Others vs. CST [2017(5)TMI 240-CESTATAhmedabad], CESTAT, Ahmedabad has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court to conclude that the threshold exemption is available for each individual co-owner. Further, we find that in the present case, risks and rewards are not shared as each of the co-owner brought money from their own sources to buy properties and they are receiving rents separately. Further, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Sunita Rani Agarwal (cited supra). Further we find that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shiv Sagar Estates (Aop), Bombay High Court has held that lease rent from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
