Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Chennai-34 v. M/S.khivraj Tech Park Limited,Chennai-32

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 17.7.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYANTax Case Appeal Nos.437 to 439 of 2017 &CMP.Nos.10928 & 10929 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai-34 ...Appellant/Appellant Vs M/s.Khivraj Tech Park Limited,Chennai-32 ...Respondent/Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA.Nos.1181 to1183/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'B' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2009-10,2010-11 and 2011-12, and preferred against the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeal)-II Chennai-34 dated 03.11.2014 made in ITA Nos.1526& 723/2013-14 & 171/2014-15 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010,2010-11, & 2011-12 and against the order of the Deputycommissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-II(4), Chennai-34dated 31.3.2014 made in PAN/GIR No. , for theAssessment Year 2010-2011 and against the order of the AssistantCommissionder of Income Tax, Chennai-34 dated 31.3.2013 &30.12.2011 made in PAN/GIR No.AACCK4418 P for the AssessmentYear 2009-10 & 2010-11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directedagainst the common order dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA.Nos.1181 to1183/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'B' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2009-10,2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theAppellate Tribunal is correct in upholdingthe order of the CIT(A) directing theAssessing Officer to treat the rental incomefrom the letting out of property as'business income' and to allow the claim ondeduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of theIncome Tax Act ? ii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal was justified in holding that therental receipts to be assessed under thehead 'income from business' when theassessee was not engaged in any businessactivity and as the condition forchargeability of property income as providedunder the provision of Section 22 of theIncome Tax Act are satisfied in the presentcase and thereby to be assessed under thehead 'income from house property' only? iii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in disregarding thefact that the assessee has not developed ordeveloped and maintained an industrial parkby 31.3.2006 as stipulated by the IndustrialPark Scheme-2002 and hence, the same has notyet been notified by the CBDT, therefore,the assessee is not eligible for claimingdeduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of theIncome Tax Act? iv. Whether the Appellate Tribunal isright in not following the ratio of the ApexCourt's decision in Keyaram Hotels Vs. CIT[reported in (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 301 (SC)]wherein the Apex Court has upheld the MadrasHigh Court's decision reported in 373 ITR494 that where the assessee was not engagedin any business activity, rental incomeearned out of letting out of commercialcomplex would be assessed as 'income fromhouse property' and not as 'business income'andfurther,whethernonappreciation/ignorance of the ratio ofdecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, whiledeciding the issue, had made the order ofthe Tribunal perverse, both in law andfacts? And iv. Whether the Appellate Tribunal isright in not following the ratio of the ApexCourt's decision in Keyaram Hotels Vs. CIT[reported in (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 301 (SC)]wherein the Apex Court has upheld the MadrasHigh Court's decision reported in 373 ITR494 that where the assessee was not engagedin any business activity, rental incomeearned out of letting out of commercialcomplex would be assessed as 'income fromhouse property' and not as 'business income'andfurther,whethernonappreciation/ignorance of the ratio ofdecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, whiledeciding the issue, had made the order ofthe Tribunal perverse, both in law andfacts? And v. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal waslegally justified in holding that the rentalincome of the assessee will qualify fordeduction under Section 80IA without givinga clear finding that such income is 'derivedfrom' the eligible business of the assesseeand ignoring the Hon'ble Supreme Courtjudgments?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant hasproduced a letter in Corporate Circle 4(2)/2017-18 dated05.1.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai-34 stating that the approvalnotification from the Central Board of Direct Taxes in respectof deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act has been receivedfor the respondent and he submits that he has been instructed towithdraw these appeals. 5. The said submission of the learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue is recorded. The letter dated 05.1.2018 isplaced on record. The above tax case appeals are dismissed aswithdrawn. The substantial questions of law are left open.Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeasl-II), Chennai-34.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-II(4), Chennai-34.4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-II(4), Chennai-34. +3cc to Thiru Karthi Ranganathan, Advocate Sr.60493 to 60495+1cc to Thiru N.V.Balaji, Advocate Sr.62004 TCA.Nos.437 to 439 of 2017 & CMP.Nos.10928 & 10929 of 2017mr[co]srg 26/08/2019