1982 (9) TMI 118 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of income from undisclosed sources.
2. Taxation of house property income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of income from undisclosed sources
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 2200 to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources based on certain cash deposits and purchases made by the assessee in the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld this addition. However, upon appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the nature and source of the investments. The ITAT observed that the assessee, a partner in the firm, had funds available for the cash deposits and purchases made. The ITAT concluded that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the investments, and hence, no addition was warranted.

Issue 2: Taxation of house property income
The AO assessed the annual letting value of the lower portion of the assessee's house used by the firm for business purposes and the upper portion used for residential purposes. The AO taxed Rs. 2000 as house property income for the lower portion and Rs. 1000 for the upper portion after allowing deductions. The assessee contended that since the lower portion was used for business, no house property income should be taxed. The AAC disagreed, stating that as the business was run by the firm, the income was rightly computed. The assessee, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, argued that the annual letting value of the lower portion should not be included in total income. The ITAT considered the Gujarat High Court decision, which emphasized that when a partnership carries on business, each partner is considered to carry on the business. The ITAT held that the annual letting value of the portion used for business by the partnership need not be included in the individual partner's total income, following the Gujarat High Court decision.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal by the assessee, overturning the addition of income from undisclosed sources and ruling that the annual letting value of the portion used for business by the partnership need not be included in the individual partner's total income.