9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 182 - AT - Income TaxReturn revised u/s 139(5) - belated return filed - original return not filed in time prescribed u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT - Assessee has filed his return of income originally on 28.03.2013 which was subsequently revised on 29.06.2013. The original return was therefore, not filed in time prescribed u/s 139(1) and filed belatedly well before the end of the assessment year on 28.03.2013 and therefore, it is a return filed u/s 139(4) - Under Section 139(5) any person having furnished a return u/s 139(1) or not 139(2) may furnish a revised return at any time before the assessment is made. Therefore, no revised return can be filed u/s 139(5) in a case where the return was originally filed belatedly u/s 139(4) - In the instant case, given that the return was originally filed u/s 139(4) of the Act, the same cannot be revised u/s 139(5) of the Act. Revised return filed by the assessee on 29.06.2013 has rightly not been considered by the Assessing Officer. Addition of salary - assessee has given Form No. 16 that how much he received the salary during the year, but the learned A.O. narrated so many things in the assessment order - HELD THAT - There is fluctuation in the salary income so reported by the assessee from year to year and the said salary income is also claimed to have been received from different institutions - it is important to determine which all institutions, the assessee worked for during the year under consideration and how much salary he has been earned during the year. In absence of sufficient facts on record, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the AO who shall examine the same afresh after calling from information from the respective institutions as well as after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the Ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Determination of rental income derived by the assessee from its various properties - HELD THAT - where the only property which has been let out is House No. 756, Pratap Nagar, Kota, the annual rental value of ₹ 1.2 lakhs which is consistent with earlier year reporting of rental income from the said property should therefore be considered in absence of anything contrary on record. In respect of second property, it has been submitted that the same was not rented out during the year and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(a) r/w 23(1)(c), the explanation of the assessee that no rental value can be estimated is found to be reasonable in absence of anything contrary on record. In respect of third property, it has been submitted that the same was sold and capital gains offered to tax during AY 2011-12, the same can be verified by the AO and where the same is found to be correct, there cannot be any rental value which can be brought to tax for the impugned assessment year. Disallowance @ 25% of expenses - Expenses incurred by the assessee as part of its running of Hostel premises which have been rented to the students in absence of books of accounts - assessee has returned a profit of 35% which is quite high as compared to profit shown by other similar situated assessees providing hostel premises to students in the city of Kota - HELD THAT - We find that 35% profit rate is a reasonable profit rate so disclosed by the assessee and even though the assessee has not submitted the books of accounts, estimation of profits needs to be reasonable, therefore, taking into consideration the profitability so shown by the assessee @ 35%, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed. Deduction U/s 80C - repayment schedule payment proof during the year - HELD THAT - Assessee has produced the LIC certificate during the course of hearing, basis the same, the AO is directed to allow deduction after carrying out the necessary verification. In the result of the assessee s appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of Revised Return 2. Addition to Salary Income 3. Loss in House Property 4. Addition under Income from Other Sources 5. Disallowance of Hostel Expenses 6. Deduction under Section 80C Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Consideration of Revised Return: The assessee filed an original return under Section 139(4) on 28.03.2013 and a revised return on 29.06.2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not consider the revised return. The Tribunal held that under Section 139(5), a revised return can only be filed if the original return was filed under Section 139(1). Since the original return was filed under Section 139(4), the revised return was invalid. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court ruling in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT. Therefore, the ground regarding the revised return was dismissed. 2. Addition to Salary Income: The AO added ?8,59,515 to the salary income based on past earnings, while the CIT(A) reduced it to ?6,00,000. The assessee claimed to have received only ?1,80,000 as per Form 16 from a different institution. The Tribunal noted fluctuations in the salary reported over the years and remanded the matter to the AO to verify the actual salary received from the institutions during the year. Thus, this ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Loss in House Property: The AO estimated rental income based on past returns and added ?4,54,200, which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee argued that only one property was rented out for ?1,20,000, and other properties were either sold or not rented. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation reasonable and directed the AO to verify the sale and rental status of the properties. The ground was thus disposed of with directions for verification. 4. Addition under Income from Other Sources: The assessee's representative did not press this issue during the hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed. 5. Disallowance of Hostel Expenses: The AO disallowed 25% of hostel expenses due to lack of documentation, which the CIT(A) reduced to ?75,000. The assessee argued that a 35% profit margin was reasonable compared to other hostels. The Tribunal found the profit rate reasonable and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). This ground was allowed. 6. Deduction under Section 80C: The assessee provided an LIC certificate during the hearing. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the certificate and allow a deduction of ?9,878. This ground was allowed. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with specific directions for verification and reconsideration on certain grounds, while others were dismissed or allowed based on the merits and submissions. The order was pronounced on 06/03/2020.
|
