Tribunal decision on rental income classification and additional depreciation appeal remand.

The Tribunal upheld the assessment of fair rental value of unsold residential flats as income from house property under Section 22, while determining rental income from unsold shops at Corromandel Plaza as business income. The issue of additional depreciation on car parking facility and plant/machinery was remanded to the CIT(A) for further adjudication. The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, permitted the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes, and dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of annual letting value (ALV) of unsold flats and shops.
2. Claim for additional depreciation on car parking facility and plant and machinery.
3. Procedural objections by the Revenue regarding the CIT(A)'s directions to the AO.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Annual Letting Value (ALV) of Unsold Flats and Shops:

The primary issue concerns whether the unsold flats in Victoria Towers and shops in Corromandel Plaza should be assessed as "income from house property" under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the annual value of these properties as income from house property, applying the average rental value realized by the assessee during the year to the unsold area. This resulted in a tax assessment of Rs. 4,04,37,950 after allowing a standard deduction of 30% under Section 24(a).

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that the unsold residential apartments in Victoria Towers, being the assessee's trading stock, should not be assessed as income from house property. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify if the main objects of the appellant company were in consonance with its activities. For the unsold shops in Corromandel Plaza, the CIT(A) found that the assessee provided various inseparable common facilities and services, making the rental income assessable as business income, not as income from house property.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view regarding the unsold flats, emphasizing that the ownership of house property per se is the basis for the charge of rental income to tax under the Act, irrespective of whether the property is actually let. The Tribunal cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd., to support this position. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the Revenue assessing the fair rental value of the unsold residential flats at Victoria Towers as income from house property under Section 22.

Regarding the unsold shops in Corromandel Plaza, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had already assessed the rental income as part of the assessee’s business income under Section 28. Therefore, the question of assessing the lettable value or rent received as income from house property under Section 22 did not arise.

2. Claim for Additional Depreciation on Car Parking Facility and Plant and Machinery:

The second issue involved the assessee's claim for additional depreciation on the car parking facility and plant and machinery installed at the shopping complex. The AO disallowed the claim, stating that the assessee was in the business of construction, which is not included in the definition of manufacturing under Section 2(29BA) of the Act. This aspect remained unadjudicated by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal directed the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after hearing the parties and issuing a speaking order.

3. Procedural Objections by the Revenue:

The Revenue raised procedural objections, arguing that the CIT(A) should not have directed the AO to verify the Memorandum of Association (MoA) regarding the Victoria Tower construction. Instead, the CIT(A) should have admitted additional evidence in the form of MoA under Rule 46A, sought the AO’s consideration, and decided accordingly. The Tribunal found this objection of little moment, stating that the CIT(A) was within his powers to call for and examine the MoA and decide accordingly. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's procedural objection, emphasizing that the CIT(A) relied on the decision in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT, which regarded the main objects of the company as relevant in deciding the issue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, allowed the assessee’s cross-objection for statistical purposes, and dismissed the assessee’s appeal as not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld the assessment of the fair rental value of the unsold residential flats as income from house property under Section 22, while the rental income from the unsold shops at Corromandel Plaza was to be assessed as business income. The issue of additional depreciation was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

---