9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material for the firm out of his cash of Rs. 1200. The ITO therefore, called up the assessee to explain the nature and source of the above two items of the assessee. After explanation was rendered by the assessee and considered by the ITO he came to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to prove the nature and source of the above investments. He, therefore, added Rs. 2200, to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. The said addition has been upheld by the AAC. 3. We have heard the representative for the assessee and the departmental representative. Admittedly the assessee is the partner in the aforesaid firm of M/s. Brijwashi Mishan Bhandar which is carrying on the Business as sweet mean sellers. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r where the assessee is a partner. The upper portion of the house is used by the assessee for his residence as well as for the residence of the other partner. The ITO valued the annual letting value of the lower portion at Rs. 2,400. After allowing 1/6th for repairs he brought to tax Rs. 2,000 under the head "House Property Income" without giving any further deduction. The case of the assessee that the lower portion of the house of the assessee was being used for his business purposes and as such, no house property income was there, was rejected by the ITO. In so far as the portion which is in the occupation of the assessee for his residence the annual letting value was determined at Rs. 2,400. 50 per cent allowance thereof was allowed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annual letting value in respect of the lower portion of the house cannot be included in his total income. These arguments are controverted by the Deptl. Rep., who has relied on the orders of the authorities. 7. We have given consideration to the above arguments. In CIT vs. Rasiklal Balabhai, the High Court has held that in determining whether the annual letting value of the godown owned by the assessee, an individual and used for the business carried on by him in partnership was not liable to be included in his total income under the provisions of s. 22 of the IT ACT, 1961, two questions would require consideration:(1) is the assessee carrying on business, and (2) is he occupying the property for purposes of such business. The said two po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
