9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, revenue s appeal stand dismissed. CIT(A) correctly allowed assessee s appeal and directed Ld. AO to assess the rental income as Business Income . - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.5671/Mum/2019, 5672/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 6-5-2021 - HON BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Assessee by : Ms. Ira Bahl Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Brajendra Kumar Ld. Sr. DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years [AY in short] 2009-10 2011-12 contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority. However, the facts as well as issues are identical in both the appeals. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income was to be assessed as Income from House Property . To adopt the same view in this year, the case was reopened for this year as per due process of law. 3.3 It transpired that the assessee was owner of property which was given on rent and received regular monthly income. It transpired that M/s Hubtown constructed an industrial park namely Akruti Trade Center at Andheri. Another entity namely M/s Brainpoint Infotech Private Ltd. was a mutual benefit company which was providing various amenities / infrastructural facilities for the said industrial park building. M/s Brainpoint sold units of industrial park to the assessee and also transferred operation and maintenance of the industrial park building to the assessee. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 for AY 2010-11 was also reversed by Ld. CIT(A). Since the facts remain the same for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 2012-13, the income was to be assessed as Business Income . Consequently, the legal issue assailing the validity of assessment proceedings was not adjudicated. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. We find that the whole basis of reopening the case for the year is the fact that an assessment was framed for AY 2010-11 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act wherein a view was taken that the leased rental income was to be assessed as Income from House Property . To adopt the same view, the case was reopened. We find that the appeals for AY 2010-11 was subject matter of adjudication before this Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d merged with appellate order, subsequent order passed u/s 263 would not be valid and accordingly, quashed the revision. 6. On the basis of above orders, it could be seen that the issue on merits in AY 2010-11 stood covered in assessee s favor wherein the rental income has finally been accepted as Business Income . The issue in AY 2012-13 has also attained finality since no appeal was preferred by the department against appellate order for that year. The revisional order passed u/s 263 has already been quashed by the Tribunal. For the stated reasons, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order. Therefore, revenue s appeal stand dismissed. 7. Facts are pari-materia the same in AY 2011-12. The assessee was reassessed u/s 143(3) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
