IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3395/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13)

ITA No.3396/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15)

ITA No. 3397/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16)

ITA No. 3398/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18)

Arihant Developers v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Arihant Godown Complex, बनाम Income Tax, Circle – I, 1^st Kopar Bus Stop, Agra Road, Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Village Purna, Bhiwandi - Nagar, Khadak Pada, 421302, Maharashtra Kalyan (W) – 421 301 Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAFFA0035Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARs Respondent by : Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 25.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of even date as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3)

r.w.s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18. Since the issues involved are common and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. We take up appeal for AY 2012-13 as Lead case. Decision rendered herein would apply mutatis mutandis to rest of other appeals.

2. ITA No. 3395/MUM/2024(A.Y. 2012-13)

The grounds of the appeals are as under:

1. The Ld National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’] erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the rental receipts of Rs 2,82,16,861/- as business income and denied the standard deduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs. 83,74,762/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross total income determined at Rs. 2,60,33,302/- as against returned income of Rs. 1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made may deleted.

2. The Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO without appreciating the fact that the godowns constructed by the Appellant are being held as stock in trade and the same are given lease to several parties which rental income. Thus, the provision of section 22 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and the rental income chargeable tax under the head ‘Income from house property’. [CIT v Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs. 2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard deduction amounting to Rs. 83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of the Act.

3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring income at Rs. 1,69,14,565/-.

Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing income at Rs. 1,76,58,540/-. Thereafter, case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to it on 29.01.2019 and the reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was finalized assessing income at Rs. 2,60,33,300/-.

3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs. 2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent charges as its income from House property and claimed standard deduction on the same. The AO stated that assessee had credited two types of income and debited several types of expenses in its P&L A/c. The whole accounting was very business like. Further, on perusal of Form 3CD, it was noticed by him that in item no. 10(a) regarding ‘Nature of Business or Profession’, the assessee had mentioned construction of godowns and galas, land development and Renting of Immovable property as business of the assessee. 3.3 In addition t