9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em of immovable property, bearing No.10-1-32A, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam. The building was given on lease to the Telecom Department, and Narsamma was an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). She was showing the income from house property, in her returns, year after year. She passed away on 16.09.1994. Her legal representative i.e. the appellant herein, filed returns for the period between 01.04.1994 and 16.09.1994 and paid the income tax, on the income from house property. The owner of the house i.e. Narsamma, executed a registered Will, bequeathing the property in favour of a Trust. The same was acted upon and the Trust received the rents, and paid income tax thereon, by filing returns for the period subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Assessing Officer entertained a serious doubt as to the accuracy of the rent on which the tax is paid, and by following the prescribed procedure, he levied tax on the enhanced amount. He submits that the Commissioner has taken a reasonable and practical view of the matter and the same was upheld by the Tribunal. As regards the alleged double levy, learned counsel submits that the question was not raised before the Commissioner, and obviously for that reason, the Tribunal refused to deal with it. Two aspects arise for consideration. The first is about the quantum of rent; and the second is about the period regarding which the appellant is under obligat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the reasonable rent of his choice, gets virtually restricted. He cannot ignore the actual payments and fix an imaginary figure, based upon the alleged information or potential of the building. Things would have been different altogether, had it been a case where the appellant is alleged to have suppressed the correct information, and furnished accurate figures. This is a rare case, in which the proceedings under Section 271C of the Act were initiated, and on close verification of the matter, they were dropped. The figure Rs. 2.83 p., per Square Foot, mentioned in the order of the Commissioner was found to be imaginary. The figure was derived by dividing the rent of Rs. 13,500/- with carpet area and not the actual area of the building. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
