Appeal regarding rental income from house property under the head ‘Income from Business and Profession’ as against ‘Income from House Property'

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
[ DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI ]

BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
A N D
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)

ITANo. 3136/Del/2018
(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Tube Rose Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
Enkay House, 3&4, Malcha Marg
Shopping Centre, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi – 110 021.
PAN: AAACT2687F
(Appellant) 

Vs.

ACIT,
Circle: 16 (1)
New Delhi
(Respondent) 

Assessee by : Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. &
Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A.
Department by: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR;
Date of Hearing : 01/03/2021
Date of pronouncement : 26/03/2021

O R D E R

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

01 This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals)- 33, New Delhi, dated 22.02.2018 wherein assessee filed an appeal beforehim against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 16(1), New Delhi, for assessment year 2010-11 passed under Section143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28.02.2013 determining thetotal income of the assessee at Rs.4,27,14,580/- against the returned income of the assessee filed on 9.10.2010 at Rs.3,23,72,809/- making an addition of Rs.1,03,41,773/- on account of maintenance income and reimbursement of income in that assessment order, was partly allowed.

02 The assessee is aggrieved with that order and, therefore, has effectively raised three grounds of appeal:- 

“l (i). That on facts and circumstances, the Id. CIT(A) was not justifiedin treating rental income from house property under the head‘Income from Business and Profession’ as against ‘Income fromHouse Property’ offered by the assessee in disregard to past history and judicial precedents.

(ii) That the order of Id. CIT (A) is highly arbitrary and without properopportunity* appreciation of facts and against the principle ofnatural justice.

(iii)That the Id. CIT(A) having disregarded the order of Hon’ble ITAT forAY 2009-10 and order of CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 which have attained finality, the impugned order is arbitrary, misconceived and not in conformity with settled position.

2(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting claim of Standard Deduction u/s 24 in respect of income from letting of property by reclassifying the same under the head ‘Income from business and Profession’.

(ii) That in any case, the income from letting of property having beenconsistently assessed under the head ‘Income from House Property’in the preceding and subsequent assessment years, the order ofCIT(A) is in total disregard to rule of consistency and order of Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case. 

To  know more in details find the attachment file