TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 30/03/2015. 2. The grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law and in absence of any authenticated and registered documents on records to prove the ownership of immovable property in assessee's favour the ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the income earned by the assessee in respect of property let out to ICICI bank is entitled for deduction u/s.24(a) of the LT Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in absence of any authenticated and registered documents on record to prove that there was 'part performance' as stated in section 53A of Transfer of Property Act,1882 vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd or add a fresh ground as and when found necessary either before or at the time of hearing." 3. At the outset itself, when this appeal was called out for hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the order dated 21/10/2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 5965/Mumbai/2013, whereby the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the disputed issue was deleted by the Tribunal. Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, copy of which is placed before the Bench for perusal. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the order passed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the past years, the issue has been consistently decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, starting with the lead order for assessment year 2005-06 vide ITA No.3008/Mum/2008 dated 09/10/2009. In this context, the following discussion in the order of the Tribunal dated 9/10/2009(supra) is relevant:- "We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the assessee is in possession of the premises for the last 40 years. The premises were with M/s Bharat Import and Exports as tenant and this firm was dissolved vide dissolution of the partnership made on 3-4-1958. Thereafter the tenancy right in the premises were received by the assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-09 the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No. 5419/Mum/2009, ITA No. 4584/Mum/2010, ITA No. 6186/Mum/2011 and ITA No.5689/Mum/2012 dated 29-12-2010, 29-7- 2011, 09-01-2014 and 28/04/2015 respectively followed the earlier precedents in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2005-06 (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 3.1 In view of the aforesaid precedents the issue is liable to be decided in favour of the assessee. So however, we find that the CIT(A) has noted that the Tribunal erred in treating the assessee as a deemed owner in terms of section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA (f)(i) of the Act because the fact that the assessee was a mere licensor was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal in assessment year 2005-06. Notably, assessee ....