Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries (Madras) ... vs Dcit, Chennai on 9 June, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी,लेखा सद य केसम&
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
'व'वध या चका सं / M.P. No.112/Mds/2017
(in W.T.A. No.15/Mds/2016)
नधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year : 2006-07
M/s Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries The Deputy Commissioner of
(Madras) Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax,
Flat A-1, Kumara Vijayam, Company Circle - VI(4),
No.99, Royapettah High Road, Chennai - 600 034.
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
PAN : AADCS 4844 G
(+ाथ(क/Petitioner) (+-यथ./Respondent)
+ाथ(क क0 ओर से /Petitioner by : Shri R. Subramanian, CA
+-यथ. क0 ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ashish Tripathy, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क0 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 02.06.2017
घोषणा क0 तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2017
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 23.09.2016.
2 M.P. No.112/Mds/17
2. Shri R. Subramanian, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that there are two flats - Flat A-1 and A-9. In fact, the Flat No.A-1, Kumara Vijayam and Flat No.A-9, R.H. Road, Mylapore were subject matter of litigation. The assessee claimed before this Tribunal that Flat A-1, Kumara Vijayam was used for business purpose and Flat No.A-9 was used for residential purpose. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee further claimed that Flat A-9 was let out more than 300 days, therefore, it cannot be treated as asset under Section 2(e)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. A copy of the rental agreement was filed before the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. representative, this Tribunal while considering the appeal of the assessee directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Now the Assessing Officer claims that what was remanded back to him Flat No.A-1 and not Flat A-9. Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that the matter may be clarified.
3. On the contrary, Shri Ashish Tripathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the subject matter was regarding two flats, Flat A-1 and Flat A-9. The Tribunal remanded back the matter to the Assessing Officer regarding Flat A-1. However, there was no 3 M.P. No.112/Mds/17 reference about Flat A-9. Referring to the assessment order, the Ld. D.R. submitted that Flat A-9 was used as residential purpose and it was let out less than 300 days. Therefore, it has to be considered as asset. Hence, there was no error in the order of this Tribunal.
4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In respect of Flat A-1, the matter was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider whether it was used for business purpose or not. In respect of Flat A-9, the order of this Tribunal is silent. The assessee claims that it was let out for more than 300 days. The assessee has produced copy of rental agreement which is for 11 months. When the agreement was for 11 months, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that irrespective of term of agreement and period, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 would come into operation. Therefore, the assessee cannot vacate the tenant on the ground that lease period has expired. In view of the statutory protection to the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it cannot be said that lease period was only for 11 months and it was less than 300 days. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to examine the lease 4 M.P. No.112/Mds/17 agreement in the light of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and thereafter decide the issue. Accordingly, it is clarified that matter relating to both Flat A-1 and Flat A-9 is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall examine the matter afresh in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee, including the rental agreement, and thereafter decide the issue.
5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced court on 9th June, 2017 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
6दनांक/Dated, the 9 June, 2017.
Kri.
आदे श क0 + त7ल'प अ8े'षत/Copy to:
1. +ाथ(क/Petitioner
2. +-यथ./Respondent
3. आयकर आयु9त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु9त/CIT
5. 'वभागीय + त न ध/DR
6. गाड( फाईल/GF.