ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI v. NAVNEET PRAKASHAN KENDRA, MUMBAI

ITA 4800/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 480019914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4800/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI
Respondent NAVNEET PRAKASHAN KENDRA, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 28-05-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 19-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA AM & SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAV AN JM I.T.A. NO. 4800/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE 18(2) ROOM NO. 115 1 ST FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI-400 012 VS. M/S. NAVNEET PRAKASHAN KENDRA NAVNEET BHAVAN BHAVANI SHANKAR ROAD DADAR(W) MUMBAI-400 028 PAN:AAAFN1085E APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 42/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 4800/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. NAVNEET PRAKASHAN KENDRA NAVNEET BHAVAN BHAVANI SHANKAR ROAD DADAR(W) MUMBAI-400 028 PAN:AAAFN1085E VS. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE 18(2) ROOM NO. 115 1 ST FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI-400 012 CROSS OBJECTOR APPELLANT IN APPEAL REVENUE BY: MR. VIRENDRA OJHA ASSESSEE BY: MR. TORAL J. SHAH O R D E R DATE OF HEARING: 25.05.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 28.05.2010 PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OB JECTION (CO) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 30 TH APRIL 2009 OF THE CIT(A)-XVIII MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. I.T.A. NO. 4800/MUM/2009 (BY REVENUE): 4. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE REA DS AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO. 4800/MUM/2009 C.O. NO. 42/MUM/2010 M/S. NAVNEET PRAKASHAN KENDRA ====================== 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT T HE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AN D NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME AS ADOPTED BY THE AO.. 5. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE INCOME RE CEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY TO ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN AS HOUSE PROP ERTY INCOME AND CLAIMED STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S. 24(A) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMPOSITE RE NT FOR SERVICES AS WELL AS THE PREMISES THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING HI S ORDERS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS TREATED SUCH INCOME AS BUSINESS I NCOME AS AGAINST HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AN D ALLOW STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S. 24(A) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH SU CH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE I.T.A. NOS. 2896-2899/MUM/2007 I.T.A . NO. 5315/ MUM/05 AND I.T.A. NO. 2900/MUM/2007 FOR THE A.YS. 1 998-99 TO 2003-04 HAS CONSIDERED THE RECEIPT FROM THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS HAS CONSIDERED SUCH INCOME AS BUSINE SS INCOME AS AGAINST HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND S INCE THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED SUCH INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDIN GLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 4800/MUM/2009 C.O. NO. 42/MUM/2010 M/S. NAVNEET PRAKASHAN KENDRA ====================== 3 C.O. NO. 42/MUM/2010 (BY ASSESSEE): 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE CO IS MER ELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SINCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INF RUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH MAY 2010. SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH MAY 2010 COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A)-XVIII MUMBAI (4) THE CIT MC-XVIII MUMBAI (5) THE DR H BENCH ITAT MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI TPRAO