Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The similar controversy again arose in assessee's case for asst. yr. 1992-93 and when the matter travelled to the Tribunal, it was noted by the Tribunal that there has been a material change in the facts involved in the assessee's case for asst. yr. 1981-82 onwards vis-a-vis 1980-81 inasmuch as the assessee was not the owner of the property in the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1980-81 whereas as a result of execution and registration of sale deed on 31st May, 1980, he had become the owner thereof in the subsequent years. According to the Tribunal, this material change in the factual position, however, escaped the attention of the Tribunal which resulted in inadvertently accepting the claim of the assessee that the rental income was chargeable to tax under the head "Income from business" in the subsequent year holding that this issue was covered by the Tribunal's order for asst. yr. 1980-81. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to examine the issue afresh in asst. yr. 1992-93 in the light of this change in the factual position and held on such examination vide its order dt. 31st July, 2002 in ITA No. 4416/Del/1996 [reported as Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2004) 86 TTJ (Del) 88--Ed.] that the property in question was not the stock-in-trade of the assessee and even if the same was to be held as stock-in-trade, the rental income received from the said property was chargeable to tax under the head "Income from house property" and not under the head "Income from business". To arrive at this conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 TTR 17 (SC) and in the case of S.G, Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. v. CIT . This view taken by the Tribunal in asst. yr. 1992-93 was contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal on a similar issue in the earlier years in assessee's own case and taking note of the same, the said issue has now been referred to this Special Bench for fresh consideration and decision under Section 255(3).