Agya Ram v. Income Tax Officer

$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 637/2007 AGYA RAM..... AppellantThrough:Mr. K.R. Manjani and Mr. B.K.Manjani, Advocates. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. DileepShivpuri, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%23.12.2016 CM Nos. 47110 & 47111/2016 1.CM No.47111/2016 seeks condonation of delay in re-filing CMNo.47110/2016 seeking early disposal of the writ petition. 2.Issue notice. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocate accepts notice on behalfof the respondent. 3.In view of the contentions made and in the interest of justice, theseapplications are required to be accepted.Both these applications aretherefore allowed. ITA 637/2007 4.With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 5.Following three questions of law were framed for decision in thisappeal on 23.08.2007:- “1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inlaw and on facts in holding that the reopening of theassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,was valid and in accordance with law? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inlaw and on facts in holding that the income derived by theappellant from licencing part of the premises is to be assessedunder the head "Income from house property" under Section22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not under the head"Income from business" under Section 28 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 despite the fact the aforesaid income had regularlybeen assessed under the head income from business? 3. Whether in the circumstances of the case, and on the properinterpretation of the licence deeds, the Tribunal was correct inlaw in holding that the licence fee received by the appellantfrom licencing part of the premises is to be assessed under thehead "Income from house property" and not under the head"Income from business" despite that the assessee had to incurexpenditure in connection with such licences granted by theassessee?” 6.As is evident, the facts pertain to the reopening of a concludedassessment and treatment of income as to whether it classified as havingbeen derived/received from income from house property or business.It isnot in dispute that the present appeal was to be heard alongwith otherappeals (ITA No. 290-93 of 2004, pertaining to Assessment Years 1990-91,1992-93 and 1993-94). All the three questions were answered in favour ofthe assessee and against the respondent Revenue in the judgment and orderdated 01.08.2016 (reported since as Agya Ram Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, (2016) 386 ITR 545).This being the undisputed position, the presentappeal has to follow suit. It is accordingly allowed; the questions of law areanswered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 7.The appeal is allowed in the above terms. DECEMBER 23, 2016sb S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. NAJMI WAZIRI, J.