Tca/89/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Keyaram Hotels Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHand THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Commissioner of Income Tax I,Chennai... Appellant/Respondent M/s.Keyaram Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,2, Harrington Road, Chennai - 31... Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "D"Bench, Chennai dated 05.06.2009 passed in I.T.A.No.1496/Mds/2008filed against the order dated 13.05.2008 made in I.T.A.220/07-08of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VII, Chennai,against the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, companycircle 11(4), Chennai in assessment order dated 22.12.2006 forthe assessment year 2004 – 2005 in PAN No. . JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) Aggrieved over the order passed by the Tribunal, byformulating the following substantial questions of law inrespect of the assessment year 2004-2005, the Revenue haspreferred the present appeal: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in not upholding the order of the AssessingOfficer computing the income from letting of theassessee's commercial property under the head 'Incomefrom House Property' and not allowing otherexpenditure which were not allowable under the headproperty contrary to the decision of the Madras HighCourt in the assessee's own case in 300 ITR 118? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in remitting the issue to the file of theAssessing Officer to examine any component in theincome for providing services and maintenance for thecommercial complex and allow the claim of expensesagainst business income if it is found that incomefrom the property was having component for providingservices and maintenance? 2.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counselsappearing for the parties would submit that after the remandorder passed by the Tribunal, the assessing officer took theassessment for consideration and once again reiterated hisearlier stand. This was confirmed by the appellate authority aswell as the Tribunal. The assessee once again challenged theorder of the Tribunal in T.C.A. No.815 of 2014. A Division Benchof this Court in and by the order dated 11.11.2014, answered thesubstantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and thusdismissed the appeal. A special leave petition was filed asagainst the order of the Division Bench, which was alsodismissed as reported in (2015) 63 taxmann.com 301 (SC). 4.Thus, in view of the same, nothing survives foradjudication as, as on today, the decision of the Division Benchdated 11.11.2014, as confirmed by the Apex Court, stands.However, learned counsel for the assessee would submit that thereview petition has been filed as against the order of theDivision Bench referred supra since two of the subsequentdecisions have been taken note of notwithstanding the fact thatthe earlier order deals with the very same case of the assesseepertaining to the same assessment year. 5.We are of the view that the same cannot be a ground toallow this appeal. As stated earlier, as on today, the order ofthe Division Bench, as confirmed by the Apex Court would stand.However, this order will not stand in the way of the assessee toseek an adjudication on merits in the pending review petition. In the event of the review petition allowed in favour of theassessee, the consequence would follow for the assessment year2004-2005 also and in such an eventuality, our order will notstand in the way. 5.We are of the view that the same cannot be a ground toallow this appeal. As stated earlier, as on today, the order ofthe Division Bench, as confirmed by the Apex Court would stand.However, this order will not stand in the way of the assessee toseek an adjudication on merits in the pending review petition. In the event of the review petition allowed in favour of theassessee, the consequence would follow for the assessment year2004-2005 also and in such an eventuality, our order will notstand in the way. 6.With the above observation, the Tax Case Appeal standsdismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarmmiTo1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,"D" BENCH, CHENNAI.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I, CHENNAI.3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIII,CHENNAI, 121, MAHATMA GANDHI SALAI.4. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,COMPANY CIRCLE II (4),BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. 5. THE ASSISTANT MAGISTRATE, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,RAJAJI BHAVAN, 3 FLOOR, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI 90. T.C.(A).No.89 of 2010 GJ II(CO)TR(04/07/2018)