Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg, & Shri Ashwani Taneja
आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member):
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai {(in short ‘CIT(A)’}, dated 14.03.2014 for the assessment year 2004-05, passed against the assessment
2 Jaiprakash Sharma order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Manish Agarwal, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue.
In this appeal, solitary ground raised by the assessee is with respect to addition of Rs.1,76,400/- made by the AO on account of notional income under the head ‘income from house property’, disregarding the submissions of the assessee.
3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that assessee was owner of various properties, but with respect to some of the properties, the assessee has not shown any rental income. The assessee submitted that these properties were used for the purpose of business of the assessee. It was also submitted that some of these properties were given by the assessee to its employees, and thus, these were used for the purpose of the business, and therefore, annual rental value of these properties was not taxable under the head ‘income from house property’ on notional basis. But without going into verification of the facts stated by the assessee, the AO disbelieved the contentions of the assessee and made addition in the assessment order by making estimate of the deemed rent computed as per provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act.
3 Jaiprakash Sharma 3.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein submissions made before the AO were reiterated. But Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds of the assessee without discussing any facts or issues involved.
3.3. The brief order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is reproduced as under:
“The explanation offered by appellant for ground no.2 is not convincing. The addition made on this ground is sustained.”
3.4. From the above, it is noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and non-speaking at all. No discussion has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to the authenticity or otherwise of the submissions of the assessee and the facts narrated before the AO and Ld. CIT(A). In our opinion, justice has not been done to this case. The facts have not been properly analysed by either of the lower authorities, therefore, in all fairness and to meet the ends of justice, we send this issue back to the file of the AO. The AO shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and shall decide this issue afresh after taking into account, all the details and documentary evidences as may be submitted by the assessee, as per law and facts. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4 Jaiprakash Sharma 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 6th January, 2016.