SRI ANIL KUMAR,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

The assessee’s former substantive ground pleads that both the lower authorities’ actions have erred in law and on facts in declining his claim to have derived income from house property being a partner in the partnership firm M/s Natraj Consortium followed by disallowance of allowable standard deduction u/s 24 of the Act. The Revenue’s case in support of the impugned disallowance/addition is that this assessee does not own any such house property so as to derive the corresponding house property income. Learned counsel’s case on the other hand is that the assessee’s firm M/s Natraj Consortium owns house property given on rent and the other two partners therein already stand assessed qua the corresponding share(s) of the very income. I therefore deem it appropriate that larger Sri Anil Kumar Dhaiya interest of justice would be met in case the learned Assessing Officer re-examines this former issue once again. I order accordingly. The assessee undertakes to appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 31.06.20 for further proceedings. This former substantive ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Coming to the latter issue of estimated disallowance of 50% of the expenses, I find that neither assessee has been able to satisfactorily discharge his onus to proving the same to have been incurred wholly or exclusively for deriving corresponding income nor the department has justified such a higher rate of disallowance which may give rise to abnormal profit rate. I deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance of 50% to @10% only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Interest computation, if any, shall be finalised as per law. This latter substantive grievance is partly accepted.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.