TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (A.O) in charging notional income as income from house properties in respect of unsold units (both residential/commercial), which were held by the appellant as its stock in trade. Without prejudice to the ground taken above, the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the ALV of the unsold units (both residential/commercial) held by the appellant as stock in trade at Rs. 3,21,15,588/-, the estimation so made is highly exorbitant." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of a real estate developer had e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.11.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 4,41,51,060/-. Subsequently, the return of income was revised by the assessee on 24.01.2014 at an income of Rs. 6,36,07,490/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the I.T Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2). 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee was holdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- in respect of the aforementioned properties was upheld by the CIT(A). 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short "A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that the issue involved in the present case was squarely covered by the order of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assesses own case for the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 viz. Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt. ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai [ITA No. 7155/Mum/2016, dated 10.10.2018]. The ld. A.R taking us through the aforesaid order, submitted that the Tribunal while disposing off the said appeal had after necessary deliberations and drawing support from certain judicial pronouncements had concluded that as the unsold completed flats/shops held by the assessee as its stock-in-trade became a part of its trading operations, therefore, as a natural corollary any income derived there from could only be brought to tax as its "business Income" and not as "Income from house property". Further, the ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15/22 I-Kamothe, Estate, 92/96 Ghansoli, 12A/8 Shantiniketan Karghar, 17/20 Shrimik, 19/1 Mauli, 53/21 Sankalp and 56/8a Gurukrupa. The A.O drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), had concluded that the "ALV‟ of the aforesaid vacant properties held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of its business of real estate developer, was liable to be assessed under the head "Income from house property". As the assessee failed to furnish the details as regards the Annual Rateable Value of the aforementioned properties, therefore, the A.O estimated the "ALV‟ of the said properties @ 8.5% of the aggregate cost of their construction and worked out the same at Rs. 3,21,15,588/- (i.e 8.5% of 37,78,30,452/-). Further, after allowing the statutory deduction under Sec.24(b) @ 30% of the ALV of Rs. 3,21,15,588/-, the A.O brought the balance amount of Rs. 2,24,80,912/- [Rs. 3,21,15,588/- (-) Rs. 96,34,676/-] to tax under the head "Income from house property". 8. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration, in the backdrop of the observations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal of the assessee for the said preceding year i.e A.Y 2012-13, had vacated the addition of the "ALV‟ that was made by the lower authorities in respect of the flats/shops which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade of its business of a real estate developer. In fact, the Tribunal while concluding as hereinabove, had primarily relied on the view earlier taken by it in the case of the assesses "sister concern‟ viz. ACIT Vs. Haware Construction Pvt. ltd. [ITA No.3321/Mum/2018 & 3172/Mum/2016, dated 31.08.2018]. Apart there from, the Tribunal had also drawn support from the orders of the coordinate benches of the tribunal viz. (i) M/s Runwal Construction Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016, dated 22.02.2018]; and (ii). Progressive Homes Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5082 /Mum/2016, dated 16.05.2018]. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. It may also be relevant and pertinent to point out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case of the "sister concern‟ of the assessee viz. ACIT Vs. Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.3321/Mum/2018....