SUNIL PANDURANG MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1799/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 October 2023AY 2016-1713 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of treating the Ambey Valley property as self-occupied to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with clear reasoning. It also set aside the addition under Section 68, directing the CIT(A) to verify the actual sale consideration received by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a loss from house property, but the AO determined a higher annual value for properties, including one at Ambey Valley and another in Mantri Park. The AO also made an addition on account of a property sale where the sale consideration in the return differed from the actual sale value.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ambey Valley property can be considered self-occupied, and whether the addition under Section 68 for a property sale is justified based on the sale consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23,Section 68,Section 24(b),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala
For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Sawant
Hearing: 03.08.2023Pronounced: 13.10.2023
1.

Shri Sunil Pandurang Mantri (the Assessee/Appellant) against the appellate order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [herein after referred as “the CIT(A)”] dated 21.04.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred as “the Act”]

2.

Facts culled out from records shows that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income [ ROI] on 05.08.2016 at loss of ₹23,68,320/-. This ROI was selected for scrutiny. The AO noted that the assessee is holding the position of director of companies engaged in the real estate business. The assessee has shown loss from income from house property and income from other sources. The Ld. AO noted that as per the balance sheet as at 31.03.2015 the assessee was having four properties, one of the properties is at Ambey Valley. The assessee has shown annual value for deemed late out property at 5% of actual cost of acquisition. From the above sum, the assessee has deducted interest on loan of ₹37,27,616/- and accordingly the claimed loss of ₹26,12,517/-. The AO questioned the assessee and

4.

The AO further found that the assessee has sold property being flat at Mantri Park Bloom 1601 for ₹ 78 lacs, but in ROI sales consideration was shown at

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A)

a. Upheld the determination of the annual value of properties at 7% of the cost of property following the decision of co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. b. With respect to the claim of the assessee to consider the Ambey Valley property as self-occupied property with effect from 13.05.2015 the same was allowed. c. With respect to the deemed annual value of flat no. 1604, he deleted the addition of annual value holding that occupancy certificate is not available and same issue is decided in favour of the assessee for assessment year 2015-16. d. On the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 24(b) of the Act against the claim of the e. With respect to the addition u/s 68 of the Act, he held that the claimed of the lower sale value of property at ₹ 78 lacs against consideration was stated in the original return of ₹ 1,15,40,800/-. He held that as the claim was made in the assessment proceedings and not by filling by a revised return it was not admissible.

7.

Accordingly, the appellate order was passed on 21.04.2023 against which the assessee is aggrieved.

8.

Though the assessee has raised three grounds of appeal but during the course of hearing, the assessee did not press the ground no. 2 against the interest disallowance. Therefore, ground 2 is dismissed.

9.

The first ground of appeal is to consider the Ambey Valley property as self-occupied property. We find that the Ld. AO did not consider the claim of the

10. Ground no.3 is with respect to addition u/s 68 of the Act of ₹20,97,500/-, claim of the assessee is that in the original return of income sale consideration was wrongly shown of ₹150,40,800/- whereas it is claimed by the assessee that property is sold at ₹ 78 lacs only , the market value of the property was stated to be ₹ 94,43,000/-. Before us, the assessee has also not submitted any evidence that how the sale consideration of Rs.1.15 crore was mentioned originally. However, the sale agreement produced

11.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2023.

More judgments on Section 23

All 564 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →