Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Finally, the learned CIT(A) concluded the case with the following observations :-

As things stand, the appellant is now in possession of Scindia House as aforced investment. The question is, should it get a different treatment from another person holding property and deriving income which is assessed under the head 'Income from House property'. The appellant has no choice of the matter and it cannot get sanction at all for any further activity of construction even if it had intention to develop the property. It has merely receiving rent for years. Therefore, income from the said property needs to be assessed as income from house property as heads of income are mutually exclusive and this principle has been clearly enumerated in the order of the Tribunal itself for the assessment year 1980-81,and is also supported by various authorities. Further whether the appellant had at all any possibility of developing property by further construction on terrace of Scindia House has not been supported as appellant has not produced relevant enactment or byelaw of NDMC to support its contention of being in a position to develop the property. Had the NDMC acted against the law, the appellant was bound to have challenged the action of the NDMC as NDMC's action struck at its very intention to do business after it made the investment. It must be stated that these aspects were not brought on the notice of the Hon'ble ITAT when the matter was before them. Had there aspects been brought to their notice, their decision may well have been different.