Rental income from jointly owned property assessed as AOP income when co-owners act collectively without defined shares

HC held that rental income from jointly owned property must be assessed as AOP income rather than individual income. Co-owners received rent jointly from government companies in single account, raised loans collectively, and acted as single landlord without defined individual shares. Court distinguished between completed buildings and plinth-level construction, ruling that plinth cannot be treated as building under Section 26 for house property income purposes. Revenue's assessment treating rental income as AOP income was upheld, while ITAT's allowance of depreciation on plinth construction was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether rental income received by the appellant and co-owners is considered income of the AOPRs.
2. Whether plinths constructed by the appellant are classified as buildings for income tax assessment purposesRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant and co-owners purchased property jointly and rented out godowns and plinths. The income tax authority treated the rental income as that of the AOP. The CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, directing assessment of income in the hands of co-owners based on Section 26 of the Income Tax Act. However, the CIT upheld treating income from open plinths as AOP income. The ITAT held the rental income as AOP income but allowed depreciation on plinths at 10%. The appellant argued that individual reflection of income in ITRs should preclude AOP treatment. The court referred to Ch. Atchaiah case, stating that the AOP can be taxed for income related to it, regardless of individual assessments. The court upheld the ITAT decision on AOP income, favoring the Revenue.

Issue 2:
The question arose whether plinths constructed by the appellant qualify as buildings for income assessment. The court defined plinths as slablike members beneath columns or piers. It was clarified that a plinth alone does not constitute a building; further construction is required. The court concluded that plinths, without additional construction, do not meet the definition of a building under Section 26 of the Act. Therefore, depreciation on plinths was disallowed. The ITAT's observations on this matter were set aside, favoring the Revenue. The cross-objections of the appellant were also rejected, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, relevant legal principles applied, and the court's final decision on each issue.

---