What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the facts to be identical to previous cases and followed the precedent. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the factual matrix and decide afresh.

The assessee owned four flats and claimed the entire merged property as self-occupied. The AO allowed one flat as self-occupied and taxed the other three. The assessee argued for the entire property to be treated as self-occupied.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire merged property consisting of four flats can be treated as one self-occupied residential unit for tax purposes.

Rajesh Yagnik vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, JCIT

For Respondent: Shri Ajay, DR

Hearing: 27.06.2016Pronounced: 27.06.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 27.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee on 5.3.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-52, Mumbai dated 17.12.2014 for the assessment year 2011-2012.

In this appeal, assessee raised a solitary ground questioning the CIT (A)’s action in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- made by the AO. On facts, AO found assessee owns 4 flats with 50% share in each of them. Assessee merged all the flats and created one functional house. Assessee claimed entire house as self occupied property (SOP). However, AO allowed one of the four flats as SOP and subjected other three to tax. In this regard, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal is required to be remanded to the file of the AO in consistent with the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2009-2010 vide dated 12.1.2016. Further, bringing my attention to the Division Bench order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case as well as his wife’s own case in ITA Nos.5425, 5430 & 5431/M/2014 (AYs 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2010-11), dated 25.5.2016, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said order of the Tribunal dated 12.1.2016 (supra) was followed while adjudicating the appeals before the Division Bench of the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Para 6 of the said Tribunal’s order dated 25.5.2016 is relevant in this regard.

After going through the said Tribunal’s order (supra) dated 25.5.2016, I find it relevant to extract the said para 6 for the sake of completeness of this order which is as under:-

“6. We had carefully gone through the order of the 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) or four separate residential units (as has been claimed by the Ld DR), therefore, the Ld AO 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 have been removed and in fact it is found that these are four independent units, then the addition so made by the Revenue is justified. Therefore, the Ld AO 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.

As the facts and circumstances before us are similar, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we set aside the matter back to the file of AO for deciding afresh in terms of direction given by the Tribunal.”

Considering the above, I find the facts are identical and the order of the Tribunal should be followed for the sake of consistency. Accordingly, with similar directions, the issues raised in the appeal are remanded to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Thus, the only ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

RAJESH 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