Op/6010/1999 Of M/S Thayyil Enterprises v. The Commr.incometax,Ward-Ii,Alleppey

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 6010 of 1999(M) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.THAYYIL ENTERPRISES,THAYYIL HOUSE, K.P.ROAD,KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.PHILIP. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1.THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, ALLEPPEY. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRIVANDRUM.TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SC FOR IT 1~I.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DISMISSED: 22.2.2008SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(a) OF THE ACT RECEIVED BY PETITIONERFROM R1 DT.31.1.1997. P2: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.8.10.98 FILED BY PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.30.11.98 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX U/S.264. P4: TRUE COPY OF REVISED ORDER DT.2.12.98 PASSED BY R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.13.1.99 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.6010 of 1999.................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Even though petitioner filed income tax return for the assessment year1996-97 declaring rental income as income from house property, along withthe return petitioner filed two statements claiming deduction applicable forbusiness income as well as deduction available in the computation ofincome from house property. The Assessing Officer computed income asbusiness income which led to disallowance of specific deduction providedfor repairs under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed arevision petition against the assessment order before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissionerfound that petitioner was not engaged in the business of letting out ofbuildings and therefore, he ordered revision of assessment treating theincome under the head "income from house property". In fact, revisionitself was filed for the purpose of claiming deduction for repairs underSection 24 of the Act. I am of the view that petitioner cannot have agrievance against the revisional order issued by the Commissioner becausethe relief sought for by the petitioner was granted. Moreover, petitioner filed return declaring the income under the head "house property". Theremaining claim of the petitioner that simultaneously petitioner can claimdeduction of expenditure applicable in the computation of "businessincome" is not tenable because deductions have to be granted under thestatutory provisions with reference to the head of income. Consequentlythe O.P. is dismissed. pms C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge