2025 (2) TMI 394 - AT - Income Tax

Rental income from side activity taxed under House Property not Business Income per consistency principle

The A.C.I.T Circle – 1, Meerut Versus M/s IHDP Globals Pvt Ltd.

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding characterization of rental income. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading carpets, ... Characterization of receipt - rental income earned - taxable under the head house property or profit and gains from business and professions - HELD THAT:- We find that the main business of the assessee is manufacturing and trading of carpets, and rental income is only a side activity. The contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that since the assessee has been offering the rent received to tax under the head house property since 2007, the rule of consistency has to be followed in the income tax proceedings unless there are compelling/convincing reasons for deviating from the view consistently being held, has substance. Nothing has been brought on record by the A.O. or the ld DR before us to prove that there is any variation in the facts of the case as compared to the earlier or subsequent years wherein the rental income has been assessed to tax under the head House Property. We are therefore, of the considered view that since there is no change in the facts of the case, the rule of consistency applies in accordance with case of Radhaswami Satsang [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] Thus, no infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the rental income is to be taxed under ‘Income from House Property”. Decided against revenue. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered in this judgment was whether the rental income earned by the assessee from leasing out a building should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' or as 'Business Income' under the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that it should be considered as business income, while the assessee argued for it to be taxed as income from house property.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe primary legal framework involved the classification of income under the Income Tax Act, specifically whether rental income should be classified as 'Income from House Property' or 'Business Income.' The precedents cited included:Radhaswami Satsang vs. CIT - Emphasizing the rule of consistency in tax proceedings.CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. - Supporting the principle of consistency.CIT (Exemptions) vs. Hamdard National Foundation (India) - Further reinforcing the rule of consistency.Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT and Shambhu Investments vs. CIT - Discussing the nature of rental income and its classification.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted that the rule of consistency should apply in this case, given the assessee's historical treatment of rental income as income from house property. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary business was manufacturing carpets, and the rental activity was a secondary activity. It found no compelling reason to deviate from the established practice of classifying the income under house property.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal considered the following key evidence:The assessee had consistently declared rental income as income from house property since 2007.Previous assessments for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 had classified the rental income under house property.There was no change in the facts or circumstances that would warrant a reclassification of the income.The rental agreements included provisions for amenities, but these did not constitute business activities.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the rule of consistency, as supported by the Supreme Court rulings, to the facts of the case. It emphasized that in the absence of any change in circumstances or compelling reasons, the historical classification of income should be maintained. The Tribunal also distinguished the facts of the current case from those in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., where the primary business was property letting.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument that the rental income should be treated as business income by highlighting the lack of evidence for any change in circumstances. It also noted that the provision of amenities did not transform the rental activity into a business venture. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument for consistency more persuasive, supported by the cited precedents.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the rental income should continue to be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property,' aligning with the rule of consistency and the absence of any change in facts. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that:The rule of consistency should be applied in tax proceedings unless there are compelling reasons to deviate.Rental income from a secondary activity should be classified under 'Income from House Property' if the primary business is unrelated.The provision of certain amenities in a rental agreement does not necessarily convert rental income into business income.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to classify the rental income under house property and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal ReasoningThe Tribunal quoted the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the rule of consistency and the distinction between business and house property income. It highlighted the Supreme Court's support for consistency and the absence of any business activity in providing amenities.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal determined that the rental income should be taxed under 'Income from House Property,' and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deductions as per the previous consistent practice.