Paras Parteek Real Estate P Ltd., Jaipur vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No. 89/JP/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by following its own earlier decision in the assessee's case for the immediately preceding assessment year (2006-07), on the ground that the facts were materially identical. The operative reasoning is that the Revenue's ground was decided against it in that earlier order, which rested on the following: Where a lease deed fixes separate and distinct rents for the building and for furniture and fixtures, and the fittings are separable and capable of use elsewhere, with the building capable of being let out without them, the two lettings are to be treated as separate; the receipts from the building are assessable as income from house property and the receipts from the furniture and fixtures are not to be treated as a single composite letting in the manner of Sultan Brothers, so the Tribunal will not disturb the Commissioner (Appeals)'s separation of the heads of income. Where the facts of the assessee's case for the current assessment year are the same as for an earlier year already decided by the Bench in the assessee's own favour, the Tribunal follows that earlier decision and dismisses the Revenue's appeal on the same issue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 89/JP/2013 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
The DCIT cuke M/s. Paras Parteek Real Circle- 2 Vs. Estate (P) Ltd. Jaipur 351, 3rd Floor, Ganpati Plaza, M.I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCP 9340 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Kailash Mangal, JCIT . fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.G. Mundra, C.A.
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/02/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.
CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 08-11-2012 for the assessment year 2008-09
wherein the Revenue has raised following ground.
''Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in separating the heads of income and treating the receipts from let out property as income from house property and also holding that the receipts against hiring of furniture and fixtures is assessable u/s 56(2)(ii) instead of 56(2)(iii).'' 2 ITA No. 89/JP/2013 DCIT , Circle- 6, Jaipur vs. Paras Prateek Real Estate (P) Ltd. . 2.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset contends that
the ground raised by the Revenue is squarely covered in favour of the
assessee. The ld. CIT(A) allowed assessee's appeal by following order for
the assessment year 2006-07 which was challenged by the Revenue and
this Bench of ITAT vide its order dated 19-09-2014 in ITA No.
415/JP/2011 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, thus decided the issue
in favour of the assessee by following observations.
''4. At the outset, the learned AR for the assessee argued that in lease deed the rent for building and rent for furniture and fixtures have been provided separately. It is not a composite lease deed. He further argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sultan Brothers (supra) is not squarely applicable on the assessee's case. In the assessee's case, the company has purchased office premises for letting it out. Later on, facility of AC and other fittings were provided, which are easily be separable from office premises. The lease deed clearly shows that intention of two lettings separately and fixes separate lease rent. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (S.C.). Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A), the same deserves to be upheld.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. Specific amount for rent for building as well as furniture fixtures and AC are provided in the lease agreement. Fittings are separable, which can be used anywhere else also. The building can be let out without furniture, which was intention of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision cited by the learned A.R. is squarely applicable, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.''
The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contends that facts and
circumstances of the case of the assessee being the same, the Revenue
appeal may be dismissed.
3 ITA No. 89/JP/2013 DCIT , Circle- 6, Jaipur vs. Paras Prateek Real Estate (P) Ltd. . 2.2 The ld. DR is heard.
2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials
available on record. We find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for
the assessee that facts of the assessee's case are similar to the facts in
assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07. Therefore,
respectfully following the judgment of this Bench in assessee's own case
for the assessment year 2006-07, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (T.R. Meena) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27th FEB, 2015 *Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The DCIT, Circle- 2, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s. Paras Parteek Real Estate (P) Ltd. , Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy ) @ CIT(A), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, Jaipur
4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.89/JP/2013)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free