TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in treating the lease rental income as income under the head business and profession instead of income from house property. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee company is engaged in the business of buying and running infrastructure facilities and property development. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 15th October 2010 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 15,11,29,677. In the Books of Account as well as in the return of income filed, the assessee treated the lease rental income earned of Rs. 8,57,92,855, as income from business and after claiming various expenses, declared net loss of Rs. 4,92,46,770. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16th March 2013, the Assessing Officer accepted the loss declared by the assessee. The assessment order passed, as aforesaid, was subjected to proceedings under section 263 of the Act by learned CIT as he was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to non-consideration of the following issues:- i) Interest expenditure should have been disallowed due to non-deduction of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) submitted, the assessee has been consistently offering the lease rental income as income from business in the past as well as subsequent assessment years and the Department has always accepted assessee's claim. He submitted, only in the year under consideration, learned CIT has raised the issue of taxability of lease rental income as income from house property. He submitted, while completing the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer had initially treated the lease rental income as income from other sources. However, while deciding assessee's appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim of lease rental income as business income. He submitted, the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted by the Department. He submitted, when learned CIT revised the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 raising identical issue of treating the lease rental income as income from house property, the Tribunal while deciding assessee's appeal in ITA no.2499/Mum./2017, dated 8th May 2019, has quashed the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act by accepting assessee's claim that income from lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pleted under section 143(3) of the Act in the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. Even, in the original assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned assessment year also, the Assessing Officer had accepted assessee's claim. Notably, while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer treated the income from lease rental as income from other sources. However, while deciding assessee's appeal for the said assessment year, learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim of lease rental income as business income. It is also evident, the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) has been accepted by the Department. More importantly, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 was revised under by the learned CIT on identical reasoning on the basis of which he passed the order under section 263 of the Act for the impugned assessment year. However, while deciding assessee's appeal in the order referred to above, the Tribunal quashed the order passed under section 263 of the Act and accepted assessee's claim of lease rental as busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Authorised Representative submitted, this ground arises out of the order under section 154 of the Act. Hence, the Revenue should have filed a separate appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Thus, he submitted, the ground raised by the Department is not maintainable. Without prejudice, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee's claim being borne out from record and as per revised return of income, could not have been disallowed merely on technical reason that the assessee had not claimed it in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, he submitted, this ground should be dismissed. 15. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is evident from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had filed two separate appeals before him, one challenging the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act and the other against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed off both the appeals in a consolidated order which is impugned in the present appeal. Thus, it is pate....