9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereby the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee have been allowed. The issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the income received by the respondent-assessee from the property owned by it be accepted as "income from house property" or as contended by the Revenue, it should be treated as "business income". 2. The Assessment Years in question are Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 3. The facts subject matter of these proceedings are identical for all the three Assessment Years. The assessee is engaged in the business of hiring and leasing of properties. The assessee declared an income from a self-owned property situated at MBC Tower, TTK Road, Chennai (for short "MBC Tower property") as income from house property. Apart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 81 taxmann.com 193 (SC) held that in the present case, Section 22 of the Act was clearly applicable as the property in question was owned by the Assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. [2001] 116 Taxman 795 (Calcutta) confirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the High Court had taken a view that when the assessee was the owner of certain premises, then the income derived from such property would be income from house property. The Tribunal also considered other relevant decisions to come to a conclusion that the Appeal filed by the assessee must b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome derived from letting out properties (owned and taken on lease from others) as income assessable under the head "Income from House Property", without appreciating the fact that the rental income from the said properties was further advanced for purchase of another property instead of repaying the existing loan on said property which indicates the prudent business approach of the Assessee?" 7. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. 8. Learned Counsel for the revenue submits that this is a clear case where the income earned by the assessee from letting out the MBC Tower property was required to be assessed as income, under the head "business income", and not under the head of "income from house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Years i.e. in 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Revenue had accepted that this very income be taken to be income from house property and without any material change in the circumstances, much less in law, the Revenue has taken a position contrary to what had prevailed in the earlier assessment years. Hence, it was not appropriate for the Assessing Officer to take a different position for the Assessment Years in question. It is therefore submitted that the questions of law as raised by the Revenue do not arise for consideration on the principles of consistency which need to be accepted, and as applied by the Tribunal. 10. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is not possible to persuade ours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operties and deriving income therefrom, there is no embargo on the assessee from accounting the income received by it, from the property "owned by assessee" (MBC Tower) as "income from house property" and at the same time, categorizing the rental income from other properties not of assessee's ownership under the head income from business. The Revenue's reading of Section 22 differently to those who are in the business of letting out properties as in the present case namely in combination of a property of assessee's ownership and also to have income from properties which are not of assessee's ownership from which rental income is derived, would amount to reading something into Section 22, than what the provision actually ordains. The legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. We may also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157 (Bombay), in which this Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 4 Anr. vs. Union of India 4 Ors [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC) which followed the decision in Radhasoami Satsang Sabha (supra) accepted the rule of consistency. The following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted:- "15. The question in Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1992] 1 SCC 659; [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) (also cited by the State of U. P. was whether the Tribunal was bound by an earlier decision in respect of an earlier assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
