The DCIT, Circle-4,, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,, Ahmedabad

ITA 2424/AHD/2015 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 242420514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAACG5587H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2424/AHD/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, Circle-4,, Ahmedabad
Respondent M/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 13-08-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE DCIT CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 1 ST FLOOR CENTRAL OFFICE VAHAN VYAVAHAR BHAVAN AHMEDABAD PAN: AAACG5587H (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI SURENDRA K UMAR CIT - D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI SUNIL TALATI A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 11 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 11 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUN TANT MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 2 AHMEDABAD DATED 07 - 05 - 2015 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: - I T A NO . 2424 / A HD/20 15 A SSE SSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 I.T.A NO. 2424 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 94 97 173/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS OF EARLIER YEARS WITHOUT P ROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS O F THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM LICENSE FEE OF CANTEEN AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 12 37 024/ - AS BUSINESS INCOME WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THA.T.PF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXT ENT. 3. IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G LOSS OF RS. 190 8 9 19 3 06 / - WAS FILED ON 30 TH MARCH 2012. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 6 TH AUGUST 2012. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PAYMENT OF RS . 50 94 97 173/ - TOWARDS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MCAT COURTS PASSES THE AWARDS AFTER 6 TO 7 YEARS AND THE LIABILITY G ETS ASCERTAINED ONLY WHEN THE CLAIM IS ACKNOWLEDGED ACCORDINGLY PROVISION OR PAYMENT ARE MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE AWARD OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM PERTAIN S TO THE PREVIOUS YEARS . CONSE QUENTLY HE HAS ADDED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT TO THE TO T AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LICENCE FEES FROM C AN TEEN OF RS. 5 12 3 7 024/ - CL AIMED AS BUSINESS INCOME . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TH E AFORESAID INCOME IS TO BE TREATED FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS INCOME WAS I.T.A NO. 2424 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 3 GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETT ING OUT THE PRO PERTY THEREFORE THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY HE ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME HOUSE PROP ERTY INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME . 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON BOTH THE ISSUES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) PERTAINING TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM IS AS UNDER: - 2.3. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM AS THE SAME DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A PPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD DIRECT NEXUS OF THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AND THE LIABILITIES RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS A GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING PROVIDING FACILITIES AT REMOTE PLACES AT MOST ECONOMIC AL FARE ALSO. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER THE AWARD HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (MACT) AND AS AND WHEN THE LIABILITIES WERE CRYSTALLISED THE SAME ARE PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED BY COMP TROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN DULY VERIFIED. IT IS NOTED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ME IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - VIII/ACIT CIRCLE 4/251/11 - 12 DATED 28/01/2014. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY ME IN PARA - 3.3 ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: - . '3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS MO TOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS AS IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING POLICY THE CLAIMS ARE BEING PAID AFTER THE AWARD BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB UNAL. THE AWARDS ARE PASSED BY MACT AFTER 6 - 7 YEARS AND AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ORDER THROUGH ADVOCATES THE LIABILITY IS DISCHARGED SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUND WITH THE CORPORATION. THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABI LITY TAKES TIME TO GET CRYSTALLISED AND ALL THESE CLAIMS BECAME DUE ONLY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WERE ACCORDINGLY HONOURED. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WERE AUDITED BY C&AG OF INDIA AND THERE HAS CERTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4J4480439/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT NO PROVISION IS BEING MADE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE DONE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE PARTIES OR ROUTES FIVE BY THE COURT BY DEAD OR INJU RED PARTIES/RELATED IS DUE TO ACCIDENTS. THE LIABILITIES ARE THEREFORE CRYSTALLISED; MADE KNOWN AND DEBITED IN THE BOOKS ONLY WHEN AWARDS/ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE RECEIVED FROM THE ADVOCATES. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THIS IS NOT IN THE I.T.A NO. 2424 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 4 NATURE OF PREVIOUS YEAR'S EXPENDITURE. IT IS ALSO FURTHER BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED CONSISTENTLY ON THE SAME BASIS FOR ALL EARLIER YEARS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF CONSISTENCY THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ONWARDS WHEREIN NO DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS APPARENTLY BEEN MADE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE I'M INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLISES ONLY AFTER THE AWARD BY THE MACT AND THE PAYMENT IS MADE THEREAFTER IS CORRECT. THE APPELLANT CANNOT MAKE A PROVISION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE DISPUTED PARTY. THE PROVISION MADE ON THAT B ASIS WOULD BE TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE DISPUTED LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE CRYSTALLISED AFTER THE AWARD OF THE COURT WHICH DECIDES THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTABLE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED BY THE C&AG AND THESE FIGURES HAVE BEEN DULY CERTIFIED BY THEM. THE AO IS HOWEVER DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE AWARD OF MACT. SUBJECT TO THE VE RIFICATION BY THE AO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED.' THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE L D. CIT(A) REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM LIC E N S E OF CANTEEN IS AS UNDER: - 4.3. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAD TREATED THE RENT AND LICENSE FEE RECEIVED FROM THE CANTEENS AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS BUT THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS IT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN LET OUT FOR RUNNING THE CANTEENS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAME ARE TO BE KEPT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STAFF AND THE INCOME RECEIVED AS RENT AND LICENSE FEE RECOVERED FROM CANTEEN CONTRACTORS WAS GROUPED AS MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS. THE APPELLA NT HAD SHOWN THIS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE RETURN AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER A DIFFERENT HEAD. IT HAS THEREFORE BEEN REQUESTED THAT T HE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE US LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT CO - ORDINATE BENCH ES OF THE ITAT VIDE IT A NO. 2598/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 24TH JANUARY 2013 AND VIDE ITA NO.1192/AHD/14 IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF HA VE DECIDED THE ABOVE TWO ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ON THE OTHER I.T.A NO. 2424 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 5 HAND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH ES OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE . THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITA NO. 1192/AHD/2014 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE REGARDING MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM IS REPR ODUCED AS UNDER: - 6. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSE IS ENGAGED IN RENDERING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND OTHER ALLIED SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. DURING THE COURSE OF SCR UTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS 41 44 80 439 TOWARDS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS BUT ALL THESE PAYMENTS DONOT PERTAIN TO THE CURRENT YEAR ALONE. WHEN MATTER WAS PROBED FURTHER IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT IN MANY CASES THE COMPENSATION AWARD BY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL (MACT) WAS GIVEN MUCH EARLIER BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT CREATE ANY PROVISION OR LIABILITY AT THAT POINT OF TIME. ON THESE FACTS THERE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE DEDUCTION. IN APPEAL HOWEVER LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT APPROVE THIS APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SU BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS AS IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING POLICY THE CLAIMS ARE BEING PAID AFTER THE AWARD BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. THE AWARDS ARE PASSED BY MACT AFTER 6 - 7 YEARS AND AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ORDER THROUGH ADVOCATES THE LIABILITY IS DISCHARGED SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUND WITH THE CORPO RATION. THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITY TAKES TIME TO GET CRYSTALLIZED AND ALL THESE CLAIMS BECAME DUE ONLY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WERE ACCORDINGLY HONOURED. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WERE AUDITED BY C&AG OF IN DIA AND THERE HAS CERTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF RS.414480439/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT NO PROVISION IS BEING MADE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE DONE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE PARTIES OR ROUTES FIVE BY THE COURT BY DEAD OR INJURED PARTIES/RELATED IS DUE TO ACCIDENTS. THE LIABILITIES ARE THEREFORE CRYSTALLIZED; MADE KNOWN AND DEBITED IN THE BOOKS ONLY WHEN AWARDS/ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE RECEIVED FROM THE ADVO CATES. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THIS IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PREVIOUS YEAR'S EXPENDITURE. IT IS ALSO I.T.A NO. 2424 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 6 FURTHER BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED CONSISTENTLY ON THE SAME BASIS FOR ALL EARLIER YE ARS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF CONSISTENCY THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ONWARDS WHEREIN NO DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS APPARENTLY BEEN MADE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE IS SUE I'M INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZES ONLY AFTER THE AWARD BY THE MACT AND THE PAYMENT IS MADE THEREAFTER IS CORRECT. THE APPELLANT CANNOT MAKE A PROVISION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE DISPUTED PARTY. THE PROVISION MADE ON THAT BASIS WOULD BE TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE DISPUTED LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE CRYSTALLIZED AFTER THE AWARD OF THE COURT WHICH DECIDES THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTABLE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED BY THE C&AG AND THESE FIGURES HAVE BEEN DULY CERTIFIED BY THEM. THE AO IS HOWEVER DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LIABILITIES HAVE BEE N CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE AWARD OF MACT. SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION BY THE AO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. REGARDING SECOND ISSUE WE HAVE NOTICED THAT CO - ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE ITAT VIDE ITS DECISION ITA NO. 2598/AHD/2009 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THAT THAT RECEIPT OF LICENCE FEES FROM CANTEEN HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS ASSESSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DECISION OF RELEVANT PART OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE . FIRST WE DISCUSS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANNA HIGH COURT) RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE A FINDING IS GIVEN THAT THE RENTAL OF THE PREMISES WAS FIXED AND IT DID NOT CHANGE WITH T HE CHANGE OF OCCUPANTS AND IT WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES OCCUPYING THE PREMISES. IT CANNOT BE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THESE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO EVEN IN TH E RESPECT OF INCOME FROM RENT TOWARDS STAFF QUARTER. ADMITTEDLY THE MAJOR PART OF THE INCOME FOR THE LICECE FEE OF CANTEEN IS NOT FROM STAFF BUT FROM OUTSIDERS AND HENCE THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS RECEIPT AT ALL AND EVEN FOR THE RECEIPT OF RENT ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF QUARTER THE JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AR OF I.T.A NO. 2424 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DCIT VS. M/S. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 7 THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. REGARDING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS INCOME WAS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN EARLIER YEARS WE FIND THAT ON THE PLEA OF CONSISTENCY IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT IF A MISTAKE IS COMMITTED BY THE AO IN EARLIER YEARS THE SAME SHOULD BE PERPETUATED. THIS IS NOT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME IS NOT IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS RENTAL INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND LEGAL FINDINGS AND FOLLOWING THE DECI SI ON OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WE DISMISS THE APPEAL ON BOTH THE ISSUES. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 27 - 11 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27 /11 /2017 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /