Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 23rd May 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–12, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012–13.
The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under:– “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of municipal tax to the extent of ` 4,11,870 out of total claim of ` 30,76,440 under the head “Income From House Property” holding that in the appellate order passed for A.Y. 2011–12, the identical claim of municipal tax was dismissed and the Assessing Officer’s addition was confirmed. Disallowance
2 Fine Trade Exports Ltd. made of ` 4,11,870 being in the nature of municipal tax, without considering the merits of the case, is bad in law and needs to be cancelled.”
Brief facts are, the assessee a company filed its return of income on 26th September 2012, declaring income of ` 1,00,99,480. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed deduction of an amount of ` 30,76,440, towards property tax called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details. From the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the actual amount of property tax paid to MCGM was ` 26,64,570 and the balance amount of ` 4,11,870, was paid to Ashapura Developers towards maintenance charges. Being of the view that maintenance charges amounting to ` 4,11,870, cannot be allowed as a deduction while computing income from house property, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same and added back to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, though, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following his order passed in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011–12, sustained the disallowance.
We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, in assessment year
3 Fine Trade Exports Ltd.
2011–12, while deciding identical issue arising in the appeal filed by the assessee the Tribunal has restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after further verification. He submitted, similar directions may be given in this assessment year as well.
Learned Departmental Representative has no objection if the issue is restored to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions of the parties and keeping in view the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011–12 in ITA no.5127/Mum./2015, dated 27th October 2017, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after verifying assessee’s claim with reference to the evidence brought on record. Of– course, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2018