ANITA NANWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 17(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1. The appellant contends that on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making the impugned addition of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of deemed rental income from house property. A.Y.2014-15

2. The appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend or delete any grounds of appeal, if need arises or circumstances demand.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 27.09.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.10,15,950/- for the A.Y. 2014-15. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act 1961. Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was earning brokerage income. The assessee was showing the rental income of Rs.90,000/- per month from SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. from Flat No.74-1B. The assessee has also shown the rental income properties let out flat N.11 B to M/s. Lalco Services Apartment LLP of Rs.25,000/- per month which was less rental income compared to the rent received from Flat No.74-1B though both the flats were situated in the same vicinity. The area of the flat was also same. The AO was of the view that the assessee has shown the less income from property let out to M/s. Lalco Services Apartment LLP of Rs. 25000/- per month. AO estimated the rental income of Rs.50,000/- per month as against the Rs.25,000/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,6,86,688/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the addition raised by the AO, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

4. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the AO has wrongly estimated the rental income @ 50,000/- per month of the flat bearing no. 74-1B and the finding has been wrongly confirmed by CIT(A), therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside. In support of these contention, the Ld.

ITA No. 7410/M/2018 A.Y.2014-15 Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in & 389/M/2018 for the A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12 respectively dated 07.09.2018 titled as M/s. Europa Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ITO. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Undoubtedly, the rental income of the flat in sum of Rs.50,000/- bearing of Flat No.74-1B has been confirmed by the CIT(A). The only reason has been given by revenue is that both the flats bearing Flat No.74-1B and 11-B are located in the same vicinity and the flat should be the same rental value. However, the assessee is discriminating the flat on the basis of the furnished and non-furnished flats as well as on the basis of the location etc. There is no dispute in connection with the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee concerns but at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has agreed to take the rental value of the flats bearing 11-B at the rent of Rs.35,000/- per month for the A.Y.2014-15. Since the assessee has agreed to take the rental value of the flat to be taken into consideration the tune of Rs.35,000/-per month. Hence we set aside the estimated rental value of the flat N11-B, and took into consideration of the agreed rental value of flat no.11-B @ 35,000/- per month. Accordingly, we direct the AO to take the said rental value of the flat and accordingly assessed the rental income of Rs.35,000/-PM for the A.Y.2014-15. In view of the said circumstances, we allowed the claim of the assessee. Accordingly we decide this issue partly in favour of the assessee against the revenue.

ITA No. 7410/M/2018 A.Y.2014-15