ACIT, CIRCLE-30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUPRITI DAS GUPTA, KOLKATA

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 10.03.2014.

2 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 3. The addition made by the Assessing Officer to his total income under the head “income from house property” was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3.2 of his impugned order:- “3.2. I have carefully considered the submission put forth on behalf of the Appellant, along with the supporting details/documents furnished, perused the facts of the case, including the observation of the Assessing Officer and other material on record. I find justification in the arguments put forward on behalf of the Appellant.

The issues raised by the Assessing Officer, in his order, including details of Flat (b/f) of Rs.1,27,900/- which, in fact, is towards Registration Charges, purchased deed of the flat, which also details the location and whether the property is let out and amount received as rent, are satisfactorily addressed by the Appellant, with supporting, in her submission.

It is also argued that the addition of Net Annual Value of Rs.20,000/- per month, is made arbitrarily and on estimate basis without considering the facts of the house property, and is, in itself, a figment of imagination.

On going through the submission of the Appellant along with supporting documents furnished, arguments put forward and perusing the facts of the case, including the observations and conclusion of the A.O. in the impugned assessment order, I am inclined to agree with the contention of the Appellant that the A.O. was in undue haste to complete the case and was unreasonable in considering one and the same property as more than one property without any justification and also to imagine the Net Annual Value of Rs 20,000/- per month for the self occupied house property of the Appellant where the Net Annual Value is 'NIL'.

5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on the issue under consideration is challenged by the Revenue by raising a specific ground that there was a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by the ld. CIT(Appeals), inasmuch as he allowed relief to the assessee by relying on the new documentary evidence without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. In this regard, the ld. D.R. has invited my attention to page no. 5 of the impugned order of ld. CIT(Appeals) to point out that additional evidence in the form of a copy of Purchase Deed of the house property and receipt of the Bangalore Registration Office was filed by the assessee for the first time before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and the same was relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue in favour of the assessee without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. However, as rightly contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee, even though the said documentary evidence was filed by the assessee for the first time before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the issue was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) mainly on the basis of two balance-sheets filed by the assessee along with his return of income. He has invited my attention to the copies of the said two Balance- sheets, one belonging to the proprietary concern of the assessee and the other of the assessee as individual, to point out that the value of flat at Bangalore owned by the assessee was duly reflected in the balance-sheet of the proprietary concern of the assessee while the registration charges of Rs.1,27,900/- paid on the said Bangalore flat were duly and separately shown in the individual balance-sheet of the assessee. A perusal of the said two balance-sheets filed by the assessee along with his return of income for the year under consideration thus clearly shows that there was only one flat at Bangalore, which was co-owned by the assessee and going by the clear description given in his individual balance-sheet, the amount of Rs.1,27,900/- was paid by the assessee for registration charges for the said Bangalore flat. As rightly observed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), 4 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer about the ownership of the second flat of the assessee thus was totally arbitrary and without any base and even the addition made by the Assessing Officer by adopting the annual value was totally unreasonable. In my opinion, the relief allowed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee on this issue thus was based on the balance-sheets filed by the assessee along with his return of income itself and there is no merit in the stand of the Revenue that there was any violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by the ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on the issue under consideration and upholding the same, I dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.

Senior Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.