What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its own order for a previous assessment year on similar facts, restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the factual matrix to determine if the property consists of one residential unit or multiple separate units.

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2010-11, where the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition by partially treating a self-occupied house property as let out. The assessee contended that the entire property should be considered self-occupied.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO erred in partially treating a self-occupied house property as let out without a proper basis, and whether the property constitutes a single residential unit or multiple units.

Rajesh A Yagnik vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

For Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR

O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal of the assessee is arising out of the order of the CIT (Appeals)-52, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT (A)-52/DC/AC-CC-44)/6/2014-15 dated 31-08-2015. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, Central Circle, OSD-1, Mumbai for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide his order dated 25-03-2014.

The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taking ALV of self-occupied house property. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground No.1:- “1) The learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,75,000/- made by the A O by allowing only part of the house as Self Occupied House Property without any proper and justifiable basis”.

3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 in dated 12-01-2016, wherein the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the A O in earlier year vide Para 6 as under:- “6. We had carefully gone through the order of Tribunal, wherein on similar facts the Tribunal observed as under: - “2.1 I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation and considering the facts and the arguments asserted from both sides, the factual matrix is not coming out whether it is one residential unit (as has been claimed by the assessee) of four separate residential units (as has been claimed by the ld. DR), therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine factual matrix and then decide in accordance with law. It is observed that if the internal wall of different units has been removed and the flats have been converted into one residential unit then certainly no addition is warranted. If it is found that these are separate units and internal walls has not been removed and in fact it is found that these are four independent units, then the addition so made by t he Revenue is justified. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the facts and then decide in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard and also to explain the true facts. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal and taking a consistent view, we also restore back the issue to the file of the A O exactly on same line. The A O will reframe the assessment in terms of the Tribunal’s direction.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-09-2016.

RAJESH A YAGNIK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR OSD -1, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments