ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI v. RAJKUMARI SOBHRAJ TALREJA, MUMBAI

ITA 4608/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 460819914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ACNPT6881H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4608/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI
Respondent RAJKUMARI SOBHRAJ TALREJA, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 06-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN (JM) & R.K. PANDA (AM) I.T.A.NO. 4608/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-0 6) ACIT RANGE 10(1) ROOM NO. 455 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. VS. SMT. RAJKUMARI SOBHRAJ TALREJA 103/104 RICKASHE APARTMENT ST. ANTHONY ROAD BANDRA WEST MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : ACNPT6881H ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN JM :- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2009 OF LEARNED CIT(A)-X MUMBAI RELATING TO A .Y. 2005-06. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE READ AS FOLLOWS :- 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 24 AT 30% OF LEASED INCOME EVE N AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 SHE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 21 98 569/-. T OTAL INCOME COMPRISED OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY OF RS. 21 17 741/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR OF M/S. SA M PROPERTIES LTD. SMT. RAJKUMARI SOBHRAJ TALREJA 2 (SPL). SPL OWNED PROPERTY BY NAME INFINITY WHICH IS IN MUMBAI. SPL GAVE THE AFORESAID PROPERTY ON LEASE TO THE ASSESSE E WHO WAS A DIRECTOR OF SPL. MONTHLY RENT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS . 98 725/-. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN HAD SUBLET THE PROPERTY TO M/S. E FUND INTERNATIONAL PVT. LIMITED (EFIPL). MONTHLY RENT PAYABLE BY EFIPL TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 1 95 552/-. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE NET INCOME THAT IT RECEIVED FROM E FIPL AFTER DEDUCTING LEASE RENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY SPL. ON THE ABOVE FACT IN A.Y. 2002-03 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER INCOME FROM SUBLETTING COULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HA D LEASEHOLD RIGHT FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS; AND THEREFORE SHE HAD TO BE CO NSIDERED AS DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 7(IIIB) READ WITH SECTION 269-UA(F) OF THE ACT. GENERALLY U/S. 22 OF THE ACT ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ANY BUILDING OF WHICH T HE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THUS OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IS NECES SARY TO ASSESS ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.Y. 2002-03 DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DEEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERT Y U/S. 27(IIIB) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVEN UE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HON'BLE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 27(IIIB) READ WITH SECTION 269UA(F) OF THE ACT. 4. FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2005-0 6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER ON 30.8.2007 AND AS ON THA T DATE THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2002-03 WAS STILL PENDING BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ADOPTED THE VIEW TAKEN IN A.Y. 2002-03 AND ASSESSED THE INCOME IN QUESTION UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM OTHER SMT. RAJKUMARI SOBHRAJ TALREJA 3 SOURCES. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE LEARNED CIT(A ) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 200 2-03 AND 2003-04 HELD THAT INCOME IN QUESTION WAS TO BE ASSESSED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED F OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HANDLING THE MATTER HAS GONE OUT OF THE STATION. TH E REQUEST WAS HOWEVER REJECTED SINCE THE ISSUE ALREADY STANDS DEC IDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. LEARNED D R HOWEVER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THI S APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR AND A.Y. 2002-03 REMAIN IDENTICAL. PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH 7&8 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING LEAS EHOLD RIGHT FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS. HIS OBJECTION WAS ONLY THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT FILE FORM NO. 37-I AND OBTAINED THE REQUIRED PERMISSION U/S. 269UC OF THE ACT. THIS BASIS HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTA BLE BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2002 -03 & 2003-04 WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST MAY 2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. SMT. RAJKUMARI SOBHRAJ TALREJA 4 5. THE DR CONCERNED MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI PS