ORDER

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -38 (for short ‘the CIT (A) Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of renting out commercial properties, filed its return of income declaring nil income after claiming loss of Rs. 23,62,983/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 147 was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 34,95,740/- after making addition of Rs. 34,95,744/- as income from house property. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the assessee’s appeal and confirmed the Action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)

3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:-

“1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. by confirming that Rental Income received by the appellant of Rs. 34,95,740/- is taxable under the head “income from House property’ instead under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession’ without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, taxing the rental income under the head ‘ Income from House property’ is unjustified and therefore, lower authorities be directed to tax the same under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession’ and further allow the expenses claimed by the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. to levy interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Said calculation is erroneous and hence liable to be deleted.”

4. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the only issue involved in the present case is covered in favour of the assessee by the common order dated 28.01.20 passed by the SMC Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal ITA No.331/Mum/2019 for AY 2013-14, ITA No. 334 and 333/Mum/2019 for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the decision of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative (DR) admitted that the tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own appeals, however, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Batra Palace (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , (2017) 79 taxmann.com 324 (Pun & Hary.), judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jyoti State Vs. DCIT (2015) 54 taxman.com 410 (Guj) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Keyaram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 52 taxman.com 469 (Madras) submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee.

6. We have gone through the material on record including the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the light of the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the assessee. Vide ground No. 1 the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the findings of the AO that the rental income received by the assessee is taxable under the head income from house property instead under the head profits and gains from business. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the issue involved in the present case is identical to the issue decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for the assessment years 2010-11,2011-12 and 2013-14 and the Tribunal has decided the sai