MONISHA R. JAISING,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11/09/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The first ground with respect to not providing fair, proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not pressed by Shri Yogesh Thar, ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed.

So far as, ground number 2 with respect to addition of Rs.2,14,665/- made under the head “Income from House property”, the ld. DR, contended that this issue is covered against the assessee by Hon’ble Andhara Pradesh High Court in Vivek Jain vs ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP). This factual assertion of ld. DR was consented to be correct by the ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, this issue is also decided against the assessee.

Ground no. 3 & 4 with respect to treating 8% of the cost of investment as annual value of the property on the basis of standard rent or municipal rateable value, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that this ground was never raised before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) or objected before the Assessing Officer. Considering the admission of the ld. counsel for the assessee, this ground does not survive, as admitted by the ld. AR, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

So far as, ground no 5 & 6 with respect to disallowance of a sum of Rs.28,505/- out of vehicle/telephone expenses and adoption of rate of 10% was fairly admitted to be decided against the assessee by the Tribunal for Assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.201/Mum/2010. In view of this factual assertion, this ground of the assessee is also dismissed.