TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner-assessee questions the impugned order dated 2 September 2022, made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 254 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the assessment year 2004-05. 4. The conspectus of facts in which the above challenge arises is set out briefly hereafter: a) The petitioner is engaged in the marketing, selling, and distributing various consumer products, including laundry and hair care products. The petitioner is the owner of a building named P.G. Plaza situated in the suburban area of Mumbai; b) The petitioner has let out a portion of the above building to third pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, the ITAT relied on an order in the case of PGHH for the assessment years 1995-95 to 2000-01. i) The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 369/Mum/2016 under Section 254 (2) before the ITAT, contending that [1] real income theory was applicable in this matter; [2] Grounds 4 and 5 relating to the allowability of expenses were not adjudicated, and [3] reference was incorrectly made to the petitioner-assessee instead of PGHH while considering the tribunal's order for the earlier years; j) The revenue appealed the ITAT's order dated 6 June 2016 to this Court under Section 260-A of the Act. Simultaneously, the revenue also filed MA No. 209/Mum/ 2017 under Section 254 (2) inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....260-A against the ITAT order dated 6 June 2016 was admitted by this Court. Thus, the issue as to whether the income receivable by the petitioner from PGHH could be classified as "income from other sources" or "income from house property" is pending before this Court in the revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order dated 6 June 2016. o) Upon remand, however, the ITAT, by the impugned order dated 2 September 2022, re-adjudicated the entire matter and held that the amounts receivable from PGHH were to be taxed as "income from house property". Given this finding, the ITAT also held that the real income theory was not applicable since this was a case of "income from house property". Grounds 4 and 5 were, however, sent to the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, submitted that there was no jurisdictional error in the impugned order to warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Mr Mishra submitted that, in any event, this Court admitted the revenue appeal, and therefore, the finding about the nature of income derived by the petitioner from PGHH could not be said to have attained any finality. For these reasons, Mr. Mishra submitted that this petition can be dismissed. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. Based on the facts we narrated above, we are satisfied that, at least qua the ITAT, the finding that income receivable from PGHH was "income from other sources" had attained finality. The issue of whether this finding was correct is pending before this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding this issue or rather this ground raised by the petitioner-assessee, it was not open to the ITAT to review its judgment and order dated 6 June 2016 and hold that the income receivable by the petitioner-assessee from PGHH was income from house property. On the above ground, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated 9 February 2022 warrants interference and needs to be quashed and set aside. 13. The ITAT's jurisdiction under Section 254 [2] of the IT Act is limited. It is not akin to a substantial review. This Court clarified this position in an earlier round when the ITAT had similarly exceeded its jurisdiction. The issue of whether the income receivable by the petitioner from PGHH was income from house property or income from ot....