9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from house property has been accepted HELD THAT:- Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that Ld. DR could not dispute the fact that in the preceding and subsequent years the assessee s claim of income from rent has been accepted and same has been foundation of relief given by Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the Bench is of considered opinion that though the principle of res judicata does not apply to the income tax proceedings still when the revenue has accepted the head of income in the preceding and subsequent year s assessment, then attributing income on a different head in a stray manner cannot be made. The reliance of ld. CIT(A) on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar Associates Vs. ACIT [ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse property since beginning and there has been no change in the facts of the company. In the assessment of the last three years u/s 143(3) of the Act, the income from tenancy right has been offered to tax and accepted. It is submitted that later on the income tax assessment for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, assessment year was completed u/s 153A and the property income so declared has been accepted. It is the case of assessee that for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 also with rental income under head income from house property has been accepted. Ld. AO however taking note of the nature of business activities observed that the main operational revenue of assessee was coming from letting out commercial complex and maintenance charges an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons on sub-license basis, then the income from sub-license was to be taxed as income from house property and not as business income. Therefore respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and ITAT, the addition made by the AO is deleted and this ground of appeal is Allowed. 3. Revenue is in appeal raised following grounds ; 1. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-22 New Delhi has erred in holding that the rental income received from commercial complex should be assessed under the head Income From House Property instead of Business Income 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi has err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. It was submitted that each year is a separate event and principle of res judicata is not applicable. 5.1 On the other hand Ld. counsel for appellant relied the orders of Ld. CIT(A). He further relied the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Kumar Chopra vs. ACIT, W.P.(C) 12104/2022 order dated 25.05.2023 to contend that principle of consistency was rightly appreciated by ld. CIT(A) and same needs no interference. 6. Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that Ld. DR could not dispute the fact that in the preceding and subsequent years the assessee s claim of income from rent has been accepted and same has been foundation of relief given by Ld. CIT(A). The reliance of ld. DR and Ld. AO on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
