Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
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/-.
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.261/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.1,51,550/-.
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
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.”
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.
Ld D.R. also agreed to the above submission of ld A.R. of the assessee.
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.
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