AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities' action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 10,46,957/- pertaining to quantum addition arising from treatment of rental income (as to whether it came under the head 'income from house property' or 'income from business'). The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion confirming the penalty reads as under: "5.1 It is seen that the assessee admitted rent from the tenant, capital IQ Information systems Pvt. Ltd., fully. However, instead of admitting the rent under the head 'House property', the assessee admitted half of the amount under the head '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to income tax payable by the assessee, is a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case the minimum penalty imposable is Rs. 1,59,579/- and the maximum penalty leviable is Rs. 4,78,737/-. Hence, I levy a minimum penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/- which should be paid as per the demand notice enclosed". 3. We have heard learned departmental representative and perused the case file. It emerges during the course of hearing that this tribunal's co-ordinate bench has already disposed of the assessee's quantum appeals in ITA Nos.314 & 315/Hyd/2017, dt.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional grounds. At the time of hearing, assessee has pressed only ground No. 3(b) of additional grounds and accordingly, other additional grounds are dismissed as not pressed. The assessee has raised original 3 grounds and at the time of hearing, not pressed ground no. 2, accordingly dismissed the same as not pressed. 4. We are left with only two grounds to adjudicate i.e. ground no. 3 of original ground and ground no. 3(b) of additional ground. 5. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is having commercial property which is rented to M/s Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Assessee was receiving consolidated amount as rent and hire charges of equipment, interiors and furniture. Assessee is declaring the above hire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermining the income from house property and for allowing deduction from income from house property to the extent is permitted under the other provisions of the Act. In the present case, the assessee made two agreements one for let out of the property and another for providing amenities and there is a doubt in the mind of the assessing officer regarding the correctness of the income declared by the assessee as 'income from house property' and income from business. He has treated the entire income i.e. as 'income from house property'. Admittedly, the authorities have the freedom to go beyond the documents to find out the real intention of the parties. In this case, though there is two agreements the real intention of the parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oviding amenities and the rent for the building not come under the purview of sec.56(2)(iii) of the Act. The word 'plant' cannot be liberally construed so as to include all items noted in Annexure I appearing elsewhere in the order, within the ambit of the word 'plant'. It is not possible to give such a wide construction as suggested by the learned counsel for the assessee. In the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT 51 ITR 353 (SC) what was let out to the tenant was a building fitted up with the furniture and fixtures, for being run as a hotel. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that since the building was let along with the furniture and fixtures, the provisions of sec.56(2) (iii) would be applicable and the income from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting of the building is inseparable from letting of the machinery, plant and furniture. In such cases, it has to be held that the rental would not have been realized but for the letting out of the machinery, plant or furniture along with such building and therefore, rental received for the building is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. In the present case, on the facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee as the owner of the building was only exploiting the property as owner by letting out the same and realizing income by way of rent. Such rental income was liable to be assessed under the head 'income from house property.' The various assets let out to the tenants are incidental to letting out ....