Assessment Year 1997-97 v. M/S Mamta Properiters (P)Ltd.,Motijheel

MISC. APPEAL No.143 OF 2003 (Against the order dated 31/10/2002 passed by by the Patna Bench of Income-Tax Tribunal in ITA No. 112/Pat/2002 for the Assessment year 1997-97) ---------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-------Appellant Versus M/S MAMTA PROPERITERS (P)LTD.,MOTIJHEEL, MUZAFFARPUR. ------- Respondent. -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Archana Sinha, Junior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department. For the Respondent : Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan:JJ Commission of Income-Tax, aggrieved by the order dated 31[st] of October, 2002 passed by the Patna Bench of the Income-Tax Tribunal in ITA No. 112/Pat/2002, has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. By order dated 12.10.2006, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upsetting the finding of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax and correct in law in holding that income derived by the assessee by letting out the Godown to Franco India Pharmaceuticals Patna High Court Dated, 12[th] of Nov. 2008 NAFR/S.Ali Ltd. on rent was taxable under the head „Income From Business‟ and not under the head „ Income From House Property‟ ?” Mrs. Archana Sinha, appears on behalf of the appellant; whereas the respondent is represented by Mr. D.V. Pathy. It is common ground that the question of law involved in this appeal has already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna & Anr. Vs. M/s. Mithila Properties Publication & Contractor Enterprises (P) Ltd., Muzaffarpur, reported in 2008 (3), PLJR 675. In the said case it has been held as follows: xx xx xx xx “The discussions aforesaid, lead me to conclude that the rental income derived by the assessee does not come within the head „income from house property‟ but assessable under the head „income from business.” xx xx xx xx In view of aforesaid, the appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to cost. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)