SHRI D. SAIVENUGOPAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed
ITA 2417/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].
For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22
10,00,000/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act.
Subsequently, from the tax computation sheet, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has received rent from land at Kelambakkam and has offered the same as income from house property and claimed 30%
deduction for repairs and maintenance. However, as per section 22