COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. LALLY MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of six appeals, namely, ITA Nos. 608 to 613 of 2006. All these appeals emerge from common 19/Asr/2006 in respect of asst. yrs. 1999 -2000 to 2004 -05. Even the assessee in all these appeals is common namely M/s Lally Motors, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. It has been claimed that the following substantive question of law would emerge from the order of the Tribunal :

(2.) IT is undisputed that the assessee had taken on rent the premises at different places and in each case there were two landlords. The rental income received by the co -owner had been duly disclosed in their individual returns for the last several assessment years which has been accepted as such. It is also not disputed that the individual investments for the respective properties were duly reflected in the hands of individual/co -owners. The rental income from these properties has never been assessed in the hands of 'AOP'. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee is covered by s. 194 -I(b) of the Act for the purposes of deduction of tax at source on the premise that the rent is not paid to an has been upheld by the Tribunal. It has been found as a fact that the tenancy in the present case was common i.e., congregation of four persons nor any material has been placed on record by the Revenue to show that the rent was paid to conglomeration and thereafter it was distributed among the co -owners. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal held that the case was covered under s. 194 -I(a) of the Act and not by the provisions of s. 194 -I(b) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee rightly deducted tax at source @ 15 per cent as per the requirement of the aforementioned section. In support of the aforementioned view the Tribunal has placed reliance on two judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of CIT vs. M.P. Agro Morarji Fertilizers Ltd. (1988) 73 CTR (MP) 180 : (1989) 176 ITR 282 (MP) and CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1986) 52 CTR (MP) 278 : (1987) 166 ITR 191 (MP). The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohindra & Mohindra Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR (St.) 187.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, we find that the question of law raised by the Revenue is liable to be answered against it as it is obvious that the provisions of s. 194 -I(a) of the Act would be attracted and not the provisions of s. 194 -I(b) of the Act. Accordingly, all these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.