ACIT, New Delhi v. M/s. Lloyd Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3874/DEL/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 387420114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACFL8033E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3874/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Lloyd Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 17-08-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ITA NO. 3874/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YR: 2008-09 ACIT CIRCLE 4(1) VS. M/S LLOYD MANUFACTURING P VT. LTD. NEW DELHI. B-10/1 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE PHASE-II NEW DELHI. PAN: AACFL 8033E ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. VANITA R. SHARMA DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YOGESH AGGARWAL CA O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI J.M : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER D ATED 22-6-2011 RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09. SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAI SED IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TH E A.O. TO TREAT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 76 40 161/- AS AGAINST RS. 30 93 639/- ASSESSED. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE: THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE EA RNED GROSS RENTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 1 07 3 800/- FROM MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS FOUND BY ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED FIVE DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS WIT H MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. ON THE AME DAY I.E. 18-6-2006 T HE DETAILS WHEREOF ARE 2 GIVEN ON PAGE 2 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. THE AGREEMEN TS ARE IN RESPECT OF SAME PROPERTY BUT FOR DIFFERENT COMPONENTS FOLLOWIN G NATURE: (I) LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT (II) MAINTENANCE AND AMENITIES AGREEMENT (III) CAR PARKING SPACE AGREEMENT (IV) MECHANICAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT (V) HIRE AGREEMENT FOR RENTING OF FITTINGS ETC. 2.1. THE ASSESSEES RETURNS OF THE ABOVE RENTAL IN COME AS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN THIS YEAR PROPOSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE IN COME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE AGREEMENTS TOGETHER CONSTITUTE A COMPOSITE LET OUT OF ONE PROPERTY. THE MULTIPLE AGREEMENTS FOR SAME PROPERTY WERE EXECUTED AS THE PROPERTY TAXES IN MUMBAI ARE EXORBITANT AND IN ORDER TO PAY THE MU NICIPAL TAXES ONLY ON RATABLE VALUE DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED A ND THE MUNICIPAL TAXES WERE PAID ON AGREEMENT NO. 1 WHICH COMES IN THE PU RVIEW OF MUMBAI CORPORATION RATABLE VALUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE LD THE AMOUNT OF RS. 30 93 639/- I.E. FIRST AGREEMENT TO BE CHARGEABLE U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT ATTRI BUTABLE TO 4 AGREEMENTS WAS HELD AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: THUS THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT IN THEIR OWN W ISDOM HAVE FIXED THE PRICE FOR EACH OF THE SERVICE/ FACILITY AS THE CASE MAY 3 BE. OTHERWISE THERE IS NO NEED TO ENTER INTO 5 DIF FERENT AGREEMENTS ON THE SAME DATE. HAVING DONE SO BY THE PARTIES AT THEIR OWN WILL EACH SEGMENT OF INCOME H SOT BE LOO KED AT SEPARATELY AND ASSESSED AS SUCH DEPENDING ON THE NA TURE OF INCOME. WHAT ALSO NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE A MOUNT OF CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THE PROVISIONS OF SERVICES/ FACILITY AMOUNTS TO A SUM OF RS. 76 40 161/- WHICH IS A SIGN IFICANT SUM WHEN COMPARED TO THE TOTAL RENTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 30 93 639/-. HENCE IN THIS CASE I HOLD THAT RS. 30 93 639/- CON STITUTE GROSS ANNUAL VALUE TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY AND THAT THE SUM OF RS. 76 40 161/- CONSTITUTES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 2 4(A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 22 92 048/- ON INCOME HELD TO BE F ROM OTHER SOURCES IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2.2. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL CH ALLENGING THAT ALL THE FIVE AGREEMENTS CONSTITUTE A COMPOSITE TRANSACTION FOR LETTING OUT OF ONE HOUSE PROPERTY ALONG WITH AMENITIES THEREIN AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 76 40 161/- SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED AS INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 2.3. ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE DEPRECIA TION AND OTHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING TH E ALLEGED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OUT OF RENTAL INCOME SHOULD ALSO BE A LLOWED. 2.4. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE MAIN CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: (B) REGARDING THE INCOME OF RS.7 57 626/- ON ACCO UNT OF 4 RENTING OUT CAR PARKING SPACES I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT CAR PARKING SPACES ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE PROPE RTY AND THE ANNUAL VALUE THEREOF WILL FALL UNDER THE HEAD 'INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'; (C) REGARDING THE INCOMES OF RS.19 06 692/- AND RS. 26 89 572/- APPEARING IN COLUMNS (D) AND (E) RESPECTIVELY IN PA RA 3.4 ABOVE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE HIGH END AIR CO NDITIONING PLANT LIFT WATER SUPPLY WITH POWER BACK UP FITTI NGS FURNISHINGS AND FIXTURES LIKE WOODEN CABINS AND WOODEN EMPANELL ING ARE COMMON IN NATURE WHICH ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE TENANTS/LESSEES TO CARRY OUT THEIR DAY-TO-DAY WORKS BY THE LANDLORD WITHOUT THESE THEY CANNOT FUNCTION. KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TENANTS/LESSEES TH E AMENITIES ARE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLOIT THE PROPERTY IN MOST PROFITABLE MANNER. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSE E MADE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS ON18.06.2006 WITH M/S MAX NEW Y ORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES SITUATED AT SITUATED AT 386 (SECOND FLOOR) VEER SA VARKAR MARG PRABHA DEVI OPPOSITE SIDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE MUMBAI- 400025 WHICH WAS LEASED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION WITH THE AMENITIES LIKE HIGH END AIR CONDITIONING PLANT. LIFT WATER SUPPLY WITH POWER BACK UP FITTINGS FURNISHINGS AN D FIXTURES LIKE WOODEN CABINS AND WOODEN EMPANELLING. WITHOUT THESE AMENITIES THE BARE BUILDING IS OF NO USE. WHICH IS A COMMON FEATURE IN ANY PROPERTY. FOR A PROPERTY TO BE USED AS RESIDENTIAL CERTAIN KINDS OF AMENITIES AND FIXTURES WOULD BE RE QUIRED OR ELSE PEOPLE CANNOT INHABIT IT ... SUCH AS KITCHEN VENTILATIONS ELECTRICAL FITTINGS ETC. AND THE SAME GOES FOR A CO MMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT SOME AMENITIES SUCH AS PROVISION F OR AIR- CONDITIONING AND CABINS IT CANNOT BE USEFUL FOR AN Y PURPOSE. THEREFORE JUST BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING BEYOND T HE BARE STRUCTURE THAT IS BEING PROVIDED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE AMENITIES ARE NOT PART OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. HOWE VER SINCE THESE AMENITIES ARE NOT SEPARATE ASSETS SUCH AS PLA NT AND MACHINERY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) DO NOT A PPLY HERE. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF LETTING OF THE MACHINERY P LANT OR FURNITURE SECTION 56(2)(III) OF THE ACT IS APPLICA BLE BUT ONLY LETTING OF BUILDING WITH CERTAIN AMENITIES THIS PR OVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE AND IN THAT EVENT THE INCOME FROM LETTI NG OUT IS 5 CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY'. THE RENT FOR THE BUILDING WOULD NOT COME UNDER THE PURV IEW OF SECTION 56(2)(III) OF THE ACT. THUS ON A PLAIN REA DING OF SECTION 56(2) (III) OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF TH E CASE IT IS HELD THAT CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE AO IS DOT CORRECT F URTHER NO PRECISE TEST CAN BE LAID OUT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER I NCOME REFERRED TO BY WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE LEASE AMOUNT RENT OR LICENCE FEE RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE. FROM LEASING O R LETTING OUT OF ASSETS WOULD FALL UNDER THE HEAD' PROFIT AND GAI NS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' AND IT HAS TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN IN THAT BUSINESS DEPENDING UPON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AND THERE IS NO READYMAD E JACKET FORMULA. ONE HAS TO SEE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE WHETHER THE LETTING WAS THE DOING OF A BUSINESS OR TO EXPLO ITATION OF HIS PROPERTY BY AN OWNER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLOITED THE DE RIVE RENTAL INCOME IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE INCOME REALIZED B Y HIM BY WAY RENTAL INCOME FROM A BUILDING IF THE PROPERTY WITH OTHER ASSETS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING TO BE ASSESSED AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' ONLY. THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE CASES WHERE THE LETTING OF THE BUILDING IS INSEPARABLE FROM LETTING OF THE MACHINERY PLANT AND FURNITURE. IN SUCH CASES IT HAS TO BE HE LD THAT THE RENTAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REALIZED BUT FOR THE LET TING OUT OF THE MACHINERY PLANT OR FURNITURE ALONG WITH SUCH BUILD ING AND THEREFORE RENTAL RECEIVED FOR THE BUILDING IS TO B E ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSE SSEE AS THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING WAS ONLY EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY AS OWNER BY LETTING OUT THE SAME AND REALIZING INCOME BY WAY OF RENT. SUCH RENTAL INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE H EAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.' THE VARIOUS ASSETS SUCH AS L IKE HIGH END AIR CONDITIONING PLANT LIFT WATER SUPPLY WITH POW ER BACK UP FITTINGS FURNISHINGS AND FIXTURES LIKE WOODEN CABI NS AND WOODEN EMPANELLING ETC LET OUT TO THE TENANTS ARE I NCIDENTAL TO LETTING OUT THE BUILDING BEING INTEGRAL PART OF THE LETTING. (D) AS REGARDS INCOME OF RS.22 85 505/- ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTAINING THE SAID PREMISES INCLUDING COMMON AREA AND PROVIDING HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES OF THE PREMISES TO THE LESSEE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS RECEIVED FOR MAINTENA NCE OF COMMON AREA AND FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURR ED SOME 6 COSTS TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE INCLUDING RS.77 640/- (RS6 740/- PER MONTH) PAID TO THE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED. THE SAID INCOME OF RS.22 85 5 05/- APPEARS TO BE VERY HIGH AS COMPARED WITH THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.30 93 639/- AND THE DIRECT EXPENSES OF JUST RS.7 7 640/-. IT DEFIES ANY LOGIC THAT SUCH A LARGE REVENUE OF RS.22 85 505/- WILL BE GENERATED FROM AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.77 640/-. TH US THE INCOME COVERED BY MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WILL ALSO BE TREATED AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.' 3.6 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVEST MENT (P.) LTD. VS. CIT(2003) 263 ITR 143. THE ISSUE AS REGARD TAXING OF INCOME RELATABLE TO A PROPERTY HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . SHAMBHU INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [2001] 249 ITR 47 WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SHAMBHU INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143. IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE COURT THAT WHILE TAXING THE INC OME IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY. IF IT IS FOUND BY APPLYING SUCH TEST THAT MAIN INTE NTION IS LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF THE SAME M UST BE CONSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY. HOWEVER IF IT IS FOUND THAT MAIN INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN THAT EVENT IT MUST BE HELD THAT IT IS ASSESSABLE AS 'BUSINESS INCOME'. IN THE INSTANT CASE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE TERMS AND CON DITIONS OF LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT IT IS FOUND THAT INTEN TION OF THE PARTIES TO THE SAID AGREEMENT ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIG UOUS BY WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS ALLOWED THE LICENSEE TO ENJ OY THE SAID PROPERTY UPON PAYMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE MONTHLY RENT . BY THE AID AGREEMENT THE PRIME OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO LET OUT THE SAID PROPERTY WITH VARIOUS RIGHTS TO USE THE FA CILITY ATTACHED O THE AID PROPERTY. COMPOSITE RENTAL INCOME WAS CH ARGED COVERING ALL THE FACILITIES. THUS THE MAIN INTENTI ON WAS TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY ON RENT RATHER THAN EXPLOITATION O F PROPERTY BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. THE RENTAL INCO ME WAS THEREFORE ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . RELIANCE 1S ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CIT V. BHAKTAWAR 7 CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. [19861162 ITR 452/ 27 TAXMAN 7 (BOM) IN WHICH BUILDING ALONG WITH CENTRALLY AIR-C ONDITIONING FACILITY WAS LET OUT AND INCOME WAS TREATED AS INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A ' IN THE CASE OF NEE LAM CABLE MFG. CO. V. ASSTT. CIT [19971 63 ITD 1 (DELHI) IS RELIED UPON IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONCLUDING THAT PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF GIVING PROPERTY WAS TO D ERIVE INCOME BY WAY OF RENT HELD THAT RENTAL INCOME SO RECEIVED WA S CONCLUDED AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. IN THAT CASE INCOME INCLUDED CHARGES FO R PROVIDING INCIDENTAL SERVICES AND THAT WAS NOT HELD AS GOING TO ALTER NATURE OF RENTAL INCOME AS AN INCOME ASSESSABLE UND ER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS'. OR UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES' . 3.7. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLA NT THAT IF THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.76 40 1611- ( AS MENTION ED IN COLUMNS (B) (C) (D) AND (E) IN PARA 3.4 ABOVE) ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' THEN EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE ACT. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY APPELLANT. I ALSO FIND THAT THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WILL NOR BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF THE IMPUGNED INCOME IS ALLOWED TO BE COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS THE ALLOWANCE OF RS.22 92 0 48/- ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 24 @ 30% OF SUCH INCOME MAY BE FOUND LOWER THAN THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND EXP ENSES OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO T REAT THE INCOME OF RS. 76 40 161/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) O F THE ACT. AS A RESULT GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 3. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 8 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES T HAT IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS THE ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME FROM THIS PROPERTY B ASED ON THESE FIVE AGREEMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS ONLY THIS YEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A U TURN AND ADOPTED A DIFFERENT VIEW. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES BEING SAME THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT DEVIATE AND ADOPT CONTRARY VIEW UNLESS THERE ARE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. 4.1. THE PROPERTY RENT AGREEMENTS OWNER AND TENAN T BEING SAME THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE. BESIDES AN AD VERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN ON THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED I NTO 5 SEPARATE AGREEMENTS ON THE SAME DAY FOR SAME PROPERTY. ACCOR DING TO LD. COUNSEL NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THIS ISSUE BE CAUSE ALL THE AGREEMENTS EXISTED EARLIER ALSO AND THERE IS NO LEG AL BAR ON MULTIPLE AGREEMENTS FOR LETTING OUT. BESIDES THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE TAXES ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR RENT OF CAR PARKING AND OTHER FACIL ITIES. THE FIVE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED TO DEMARCATE THE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT WHICH WAS LIABLE FOR RATABLE PURPOSES FOR LEVY OF MUNICIPAL TAXES ON HOU SE PROPERTY THE REMAINING FOUR AGREEMENTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RA TABILITY. THIS 9 ARRANGEMENT WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW CANNOT BE H ELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO CONVERT OTHER EQUIPMENTS AND FACI LITIES WHICH ARE INTEGRAL PART FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AS DIV ORCED FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY. THE COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY V ARIOUS COURTS AS PART AND PARCEL OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME THERE FROM HAS BEEN HELD AS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F SHAMBHU INVESTMENT (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY AND AMENITIES LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER CONS TITUTE LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY WITH AMENITIES AND INCOME THERE FROM PAYAB LE UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OR NOT. THE TREATMENT OF AN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY IS DEPENDENT UPON THE INTRINSIC N ATURE OF THE LETTING OUT AND NOT ON THE FACT OF MULTIPLE AGREEMENTS EXECUTIO N. ALL THE AGREEMENTS ARE EXECUTED ON THE SAME DAY AND ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A P LAUSIBLE REASON FOR DRAWING DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS FOR LETTING THE SAME H OUSE PROPERTY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE ISSU ES AT LENGTH IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND HELD THAT ALL THE AGREEMENTS TOGETH ER CONSTITUTE A COMPOSITE TRANSACTION FOR LETTING OUT OF HOUSE PROPERTY; RENT THERE FROM IS LIABLE UNDER 10 THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR S TATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S 24(A). WE FIND MERIT ON THE RELIANCE OF LD. COUNSE L ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG ( SUPRA) FOR THE EFFECT THAT DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT ADOPT A DIFFERENT VIEW O N ACCEPTED ISSUES UNLESS THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THIS CASE THE FACTS BEING SIMILAR WE SEE NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE THEREFORE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY UPH ELD. 6. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11-10-2013. SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11-10-2013. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR