Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish SoodShri Sailesh Mahimtura
Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R Date of Hearing: 16.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2019 O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-28, Mumbai, dated 13.06.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated 28.03.2013. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding sum of Rs.1,68,000/- as income from house property on a notional basis and sum of Rs. 1,16,500/- adding to income from other sources.
2. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the above addition.”
Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 26.11.2019, declaring his total income at Rs.50,70,211/-. The return of income filed by the P a g e | Shri Sailesh Mahimtura Vs. DCIT-12(2) assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec.143(2) of the Act. 3. The A.O while framing the assessment inter alia made the following additions in the hands of the assessee:-
Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Addition of notional lettable value of property at Royal palms (@ Rs.1,68,000/- (net ALV) Rs.20,000/- per month) 2. Addition of amounts received by the assessee from Shri Pradip Rs.12,000/- Parikh (as per Form 26AS) 3. Addition of amount received by the assessee from municipal Rs.1,04,500/- corporation (as per Form 26AS)
After inter alia making the aforesaid additions, the A.O assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.55,50,400/-.
On appeal, CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee insofar the aforesaid additions were concerned, therein sustained the same and dismissed the appeal.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. We find that despite having been intimated about the date of hearing of the appeal the assessee had chosen not to put up an appearance before us. As such, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities.
As is discernible from the records, the appeal filed by the assessee involves a delay of 21 days. It is the claim of the assessee that the delay in filing of the appeal had occasioned, for the reason, that the counsel who was engaged by him was during the relevant point of time engrossed with certain time bound compliances under the GST Act, as well as compiling of the Tax Audit Reports. In support of his aforesaid claim, the assessee had filed an „affidavit‟ dated 03.11.2017. Accordingly, the assessee had requested that as the delay involved in filing of the present appeal was on account of reasons beyond his control, therefore, the same may be condoned.
P a g e | Shri Sailesh Mahimtura Vs. DCIT-12(2) 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration and finding no reason to doubt the claim of the assessee that the delay in filing of the present appeal had occasioned on account of lapse on the part of his counsel, as had been deposed by him in his affidavit, dated 03.11.2017, therefore, in all fairness condone the same.
We shall now advert to the merits of the case. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, we find, that the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings had observed that the assessee had not accounted for any rental income in respect of his property at Royal palms, Goregoan. On being confronted, the assessee had vide his reply dated 14.03.2013 submitted before the A.O that he had no objection in case the notional lettable value of the property was determined. Accordingly, the A.O considering the locality of the property, had therein worked out its notional lettable value @ Rs.20,000/- per month. After allowing deduction under Sec.24 of the Act, the A.O worked out the net annual lettable value of the aforesaid property at Rs.1,68,000/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee had agreed to the working of the notional lettable value of the aforesaid property. As regards the other contentions which were advanced by the assessee before the CIT(A), the same were rejected by him, for the reason, that no factual basis for assailing the impugned addition in support thereof were furnished by the assessee before him.
As regards, the addition of Rs.1,16,000/- viz. (i) amount received by the assessee from Shri Pradip Parikh: Rs.12,000/- ; and (ii) amount received by the assessee from municipal corporation: Rs.1,04,500/-, we find, that the same are backed by the information that was gathered by the A.O from a perusal of “Form 26AS”. In sum and substance, the aforesaid amounts were reflected in “Form 26AS” as having been received by the assessee during the year under consideration. In the absence of any explanation by the assessee, the A.O had added the aggregate of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,16,500/- to the returned income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) in the absence of any evidence proving to the contrary, therein confirmed the addition made by the A.O.
The ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to place on record any documentary evidence which could prove that the aforesaid additions were not called for in P a g e | Shri Sailesh Mahimtura Vs. DCIT-12(2) his case, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the additions. It was averred by the ld. D.R that the appeal of the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit was liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the ld. D.R, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. As is discernible from the assessment order, the assessee on being called upon by the A.O to explain as to why the Annual Lettable Value of its property may not be determined as per Sec.23(1) of the Act, had not objected to the same. Accordingly, the A.O after considering the locality of the premises had worked out the notional lettable value of the property @ Rs.20,000/- per month. After allowing the statutory deduction under Sec. 24, the balance net ALV of the property was determined by the A.O at Rs.1,68,000/-. We find that neither the assessee had before the lower authorities, nor before us had placed on record any evidence which could persuade us to conclude that the aforesaid working of the ALV of the property under Sec. 23(1) by the A.O was either not called for, or was found to be exorbitant. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who had upheld the addition of Rs.1,68,000/- made by the A.O under Sec.23(1) of the Act, we uphold his order to the said extent.
As regards, the balance addition of Rs.1,16,500/-, we find, that the genesis of the same lies in the information which was gathered by the A.O on a perusal of “Form 26AS”. As per the “Form 26AS”, the assessee had received an amount aggregating to Rs.1,16,500/- viz. (i) amount received from Shri Pradip Parikh: Rs.12,000/-; and (ii) amount received from Municipal Corporation : Rs.1,04,500/-. As the assessee had failed to explain as to why the aforesaid amount so received by him was not liable to be assessed as his income, therefore, the lower authorities had added the same to his returned income. Before us, the factual position remains the same, and neither any explanation nor any material has been filed which would evidence that the aforesaid amount or any part thereof was not liable to be assessed as the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are constrained to sustain the addition of Rs.1,16,500/- as had been upheld by the CIT(A).
The Ground of appeal No. 1 is dismissed.