IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 6010 of 1999(M) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.THAYYIL ENTERPRISES, THAYYIL HOUSE, K.P.ROAD, KAYAMKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.PHILIP. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, ALLEPPEY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SC FOR IT 1~I.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.10224/1999 IN O.P. NO.6010/1999 DISMISSED: 22.2.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(a) OF THE ACT RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM R1 DT.31.1.1997. P2: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.8.10.98 FILED BY PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.30.11.98 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S.264. P4: TRUE COPY OF REVISED ORDER DT.2.12.98 PASSED BY R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.13.1.99 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.6010 of 1999 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Even though petitioner filed income tax return for the assessment year 1996-97 declaring rental income as income from house property, along with the return petitioner filed two statements claiming deduction applicable for business income as well as deduction available in the computation of income from house property. The Assessing Officer computed income as business income which led to disallowance of specific deduction provided for repairs under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner found that petitioner was not engaged in the business of letting out of buildings and therefore, he ordered revision of assessment treating the income under the head "income from house property". In fact, revision itself was filed for the purpose of claiming deduction for repairs under Section 24 of the Act. I am of the view that petitioner cannot have a grievance against the revisional order issued by the Commissioner because the relief sought for by the petitioner was granted. Moreover, petitioner 2 filed return declaring the income under the head "house property". The remaining claim of the petitioner that simultaneously petitioner can claim deduction of expenditure applicable in the computation of "business income" is not tenable because deductions have to be granted under the statutory provisions with reference to the head of income. Consequently the O.P. is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms