2015 (4) TMI 1235 - AT - Income Tax

Subletting income to ICICI Bank deemed 'income from house property' by Tribunal, dismissing Revenue's appeal

The Tribunal affirmed that income from subletting office premises to ICICI Bank should be assessed as 'income from house property,' rejecting the ... Nature of income - sum received by the assessee from ICICI Bank - assessable under the head “income from house property” OR “income from other sources” - Held that:- Common ground between the parties that in A.Y. 2005-06 the issue came up before the Tribunal the issue was decided in favour of the assessee the fact that the agreement for letting out the premises to ICICI Bank Ltd. is for a period of 15 years, clinches the issue in favour of the assessee as they become the deemed owner under the provision of section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA (f)(i) of the Act and accordingly is entitled to deduction as provided u/s 24(a) of the Act - no mistake in the order of CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is the deemed owner of the premises u/s 27(iiib) of the Act and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. Issues:Assessment of income received from subletting under 'income from house property' or 'income from other sources'.Analysis:In this case, the primary issue revolves around the assessment of income received by the assessee from subletting office premises to ICICI Bank. The dispute arises from whether this income should be categorized as 'income from house property' as declared by the assessee or as 'income from other sources' as determined by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The A.O. disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 24, asserting that since the assessee was not the owner of the property, the income should be assessed under the head 'income from other sources.' However, the ld. CIT(A) supported the assessee's position, contending that the rental income should be assessed under the head 'income from house property.'The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions in the case, particularly for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, where the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee. Notably, in the assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal found that the assessee became a deemed owner of the premises under specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the deduction claimed under Section 24(a). The Tribunal relied on the agreements and circumstances surrounding the subletting arrangement to establish the assessee's deemed ownership status. Subsequent decisions for the following assessment years upheld this interpretation, consistently ruling in favor of the assessee.Based on the precedents set in earlier cases and the specific circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the ld. CIT(A) that the income derived from subletting should be assessed under the head 'income from house property.' Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the presence of both parties at the conclusion of the hearing, providing a final resolution to the matter.