Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota v. Bhim Singh
[Citation -2017-LL-0420-74]

Citation 2017-LL-0420-74
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota
Respondent Name Bhim Singh
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 20/04/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income from house property • commercial expediency • taxability of income • question of law • hotel business • rental income
Bot Summary: Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in directing to adopt the status of the assessee as an individual and not as HUF as taken by Assessing Officer in the light of provisions of section 27(ii) of Income Tax Act and section 4,5 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the income earned from ITC Ltd. Be assesses Business Income u/s. 28 as against assessed as Income from Other Sources u/s. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the rental income received from commercial complex was assessable as Business Income u/s. Taking into consideration, the judgment of this court in the case of assessee himself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.280/2016 decided on 28.3.2017 D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.143/2009 decided on 14.12.2016 wherein Division Bench observed as under:- 3. The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of same assessee in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 597/2009 decided on 14.12.2016 and CIT Kota Vs. HH Maharajo Bhim Singh ors. Identical issue in the case of same assessee was pending before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.2812/2015 whereby recently in the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on 05.12.2016, it has been held that the income which has been earned by the former ruler as his income from the requisition of the property is not taxable and in view thereof, the question No.(iv) in relation to taxability of income on requisitioned property is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 283 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of It Kota ----Appellant Versus M/S Bhim Singh ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain For respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 20/04/2017 1. By way of this appeal, Department has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of department. 2. Counsel for department has framed following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether Tribunal was legally justified in directing to adopt status of assessee as individual and not as HUF as taken by Assessing Officer in light of provisions of section 27(ii) of Income Tax Act and section 4,5 & 6 of Hindu Succession Act? 2. Whether Tribunal was legally justified in holding assessee entitled for exemption u/s. 10(19A) treating entire palace in occupation despite of fact that part of palace was let out and as such it cannot be said that entire palace was in occupation of ex-ruler? 3. Whether Tribunal was legally justified in restricting disallowance of expenses without appreciating same were excessive and unreasonable and assessee had failed to furnish details and prove genuineness and commercial expediency of such expenses and as such were not allowable u/s. 37 or 57 or 58 of Act? (2 of 3) [ITA-283/2016] 4. Whether Tribunal was legally justified in holding that income earned from ITC Ltd. Be assesses Business Income u/s. 28 as against assessed as Income from Other Sources u/s. 56 by Assessing Officer specifically when assessee neither had any control over running hotel business nor was party in running hotel business? 5. Whether Tribunal was legally justified in holding that rental income received from commercial complex was assessable as Business Income u/s. 28 instead of Income from House Property u/s. 22 specifically when motive of assessee was to earn rental income and was not engaged any business activity? 3. However, taking into consideration, judgment of this court in case of assessee himself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.280/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. M/s Bhim Singh) decided on 28.3.2017 & D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.143/2009 decided on 14.12.2016 wherein Division Bench observed as under:- 3. However, issue is covered by decision of this Court in case of same assessee in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 597/2009 (Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. H.H. Maharajo Bhim Singh) decided on 14.12.2016 and CIT Kota Vs. HH Maharajo Bhim Singh & ors., decided on 14.12.2016, wherein it has been held as under: 13. Identical issue in case of same assessee was pending before Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.2812/2015 whereby recently in decision of Supreme Court rendered on 05.12.2016, it has been held that income which has been earned by former ruler as his income from requisition of property is not taxable and in view thereof, question No.(iv) in relation to taxability of income on requisitioned property is covered by decision of Supreme Court. 14. Consequently, other questions which are framed with regard to section 147 and 148 of Act in our view have been rendered academic inasmuch as income which has been derived by assessee is not taxable and no fruitful purpose would (3 of 3) be served by examining issue. In that view of matter, appeals deserve to be dismissed. (3 of 3) [ITA-283/2016] 4. In that view of matter, no substantial question of law arises. appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Bm Gandhi/163. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kota v. Bhim Singh
Report Error