NARENDRA ISHWARLAL GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal on technical ground. The appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order, the action is unjustified and unwarranted.

2. The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs- 840,000 notional income A.Y.2013-14 from House Property. The addition is based more on suspicion than on facts. Without prejudice the addition is excessive.

3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing Rs,14,23,092 u/s 14A read with rule 8D. The action is unjustified and unwarranted particularly when the appellant has not claimed any expenditure in his return. x Without prejudice the addition is excessive.

4. Your Petition craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw all or any of aforesaid grounds of appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 22.07.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.32,25,100/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee also filed the revised return of income on 22.07.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.32,22,600/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. On verification, it was found that the assessee did not show his rental income from his office Himalaya House, therefore, the notional rental income was assessed to the tune of Rs.8,40,000/-. The assessee earned the exempt income to the tune of Rs.61,813/- u/s 10 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer applied the provision of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Act, 1961 and assessed the expenses to earn the exempt income to the tune of Rs.14,23,092/- The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.54,82,690/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.