What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission, supported by a certificate, that the rent from Private Medical Practitioners was Rs. 60,000 per annum for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, modifying the lower authorities' estimation of Rs. 84,000.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning rental income for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. Grounds related to rent from Bombay Saree Sale were not pressed. The dispute focused on rent received from Private Medical Practitioners.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct estimation of rental income received from Private Medical Practitioners, with the assessee providing documentary evidence to support their claim over the AO's estimation.

M/S. Hind Talkies vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Saswat Acharya, AR

For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Pronounced: 10/01

These are appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order

of CIT(A)-Cuttack, dated 29.12.2014, for the assessment years 2007-08,

2008-09 & 2009-2010, respectively.

Grounds Nos.1 and 2 common to all the appeals are general in nature,

and hence, require no separate adjudication.

Grounds Nos.3 & 4 of the appeal in ITA No.259/CTK/2015 are as under:

2 ITA Nos.25 9,2 60 & 2 61 /CT K/20 15 Asse ssment Years :200 7-08,2008-09 & 200 9-1 0

“3. For that the ld CIT(A) was not justified to rely on the remand report of the AO as regarding the rent received from Bombay Saree Sale to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- at a flat rate of Rs.25,000 per month, when the records and account of the appellant reveal that the rent is paid on per day basis at Rs.700/- per day, and the total income is actually Rs.2,22,000/-.

For that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon the remand report arriving at a whimsical figure of Rs.1,80,000/- as per deposition of the hostile partner Mr Harish Chawda, when the actual lodge rent would actually be revealed from the occupancy register.”

Grounds Nos. 4 & 5 of the appeal in ITA No.260/CTK/2015 are as under:

“4. For that the ld CIT(A) was not justified to rely on the remand report of the AO as regarding the rent received from Bombay Saree Sale to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/- at a flat rate of Rs.21,000 per month, when the records and account of the appellant reveal that the rent is paid on per day basis at Rs.700/- per day, and the total income is actually Rs.1,43,100/-.

Grounds Nos.4 & 5 of the appeal in ITA No.261/CTK/2015 are as under:

3 ITA Nos.25 9,2 60 & 2 61 /CT K/20 15 Asse ssment Years :200 7-08,2008-09 & 200 9-1 0

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee did not press the above

grounds taken in all the appeals and has also made endorsement to this effect

in the grounds of appeals appended to Form No.36 filed before the Tribunal.

Therefore, same are dismissed as not pressed.

In Ground No.3 of the appeals for the assessment year 2008-09 and

2009-2010, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) erred in

confirming the order of the Assessing Officer regarding the rent received from

the Private Medical Practitioners by the assessee at Rs.84,000/- in place of

Rs.60,000/- shown by the assessee.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. The brief facts of the case are

that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee in his statement has

stated that it has received rent from Private Medical Practitioners at Rs.7000/-

per month. Therefore, he estimated the income for the entire year at

Rs.7000/- per month and added Rs.84,000/- to the income of the assessee,

which was confirmed in appeal by the ld CIT(A).

4 ITA Nos.25 9,2 60 & 2 61 /CT K/20 15 Asse ssment Years :200 7-08,2008-09 & 200 9-1 0

Before me, ld A.R of the assessee has filed a certificate from General

Secretary, Private Medical Practitioner Association of India dated 1.11.2011

stating that they have paid rent of Rs.60,000/- in assessment year 2008-09

and Rs.60,000/ in assessment year Rs.2009-10 and, therefore, he submitted

that the rental income should be taken at Rs.60,000/- and not Rs.84,000/-

taken by the Assessing Officer in A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10.

10.

Ld D.R. also agreed to the above submission of ld A.R. of the assessee.

11.

In view of above, I modify the order of the ld CIT(A) for both the

assessment years under consideration and direct the Assessing Officer to take

income from rent from Private Medical Practitioner at Rs.60,000/- for each

assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10and allow relief of Rs.24,000/- for

assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively.

12.

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

and the appeals for assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/01/2017 in the presence of parties.

Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 10/01 /2017 B.K.Parida, SPS

5 ITA Nos.25 9,2 60 & 2 61 /CT K/20 15 Asse ssment Years :200 7-08,2008-09 & 200 9-1 0

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Hind Talkies, Ranihat, Cuttack 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-2(1), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, Cuttack

M/S. HIND TALKIES,CUTTACK vs. ITO, CUTTACK

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments