SHRI. SANJAY CHAMANLAL MUNSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5 (1)(3), MUMBAI

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2012-13 on the following effective grounds:- a) “The Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in accepting the order of the Ld. AO and has taken the Income from House Property of Rs. 1,26,86,816/- instead of Rs. 10,00,715/-. The said addition may please be deleted. b) The Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in accepting the ld. AO order in making addition of Rs. 1,16,86,101/- as deduction claimed of interest u/s 24 and added the interest to the income from House Property. The said addition may please be deleted and the returned income of the Appellant under the head Income from House Property may please be accepted.: The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2013-14 on the following effective grounds:- a) “The Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in accepting the order of the Ld. AO and has taken the Income from House Property of Rs. 1,62,73,920/- instead of Rs. 34,29,140/-. The said addition may please be deleted. b) The Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in accepting the ld. AO order in making addition of Rs. 1,28,44,780/-/- as deduction claimed of interest u/s 24 and added the interest to the income from House Property. The said addition may please be deleted and the returned income of the Appellant under the head Income from House Property may please be accepted.: Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:-

a) “The Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in accepting the order of the Ld AO in Rot allowing deduction of Rs 1,07,94,492/- being interest paid by the appellant -The said interest is directly related to the income of the appellant and maybe allowed as deduction. b) The Ld CIT (A) has on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in accepting the Id.AO order in taking in the Income from House Property of Rs. 1,38,60,000/- instead of Rs. 18,92,324/-. The appellant prays that House Property Income may be assessed at Rs. 18,92,324/- as per the return of income. c) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in accepting the Id. AO order in treating rent received of Rs. 34,203/- as fictitious and not considering the same. The said income may please be treated as income of the appellant. d) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in accepting the Id. AO order in not allowing deduction in respect of rent paid of Rs. 17,10,000/- by treating the same payment as fictitious. We request your Honor to kindly allow the said expense. e) Without prejudice to the above, we request your Honor to kindly grant us deduction in respect of income on which such tenants have paid tax as not allowing such deduction would amount to double taxation of the said income.”

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the appellant/assessee submitted that assessee has opted to settle the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, therefore these appeals may be kept in abeyance. Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 4. The Ld. departmental representative did not oppose the aforesaid submissions made by the Ld. counsel.

In the case of M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) vs. ACIT, TCA No 372 of 2020, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn in which the counsel had made the similar submissions before the Hon’ble Court. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under:-