9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofession a Doctor stated to be having income from rent and other sources. Initially Assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 showing net agricultural income for rate purposes of Rs. 12,81,686/- and total loss of Rs. 2,10,843/-. Notice u/s. 148 was issued and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 22.12.2006 and the total income was determined at Rs. 9,47,260/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 20.01.2010 granted partial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has filed the grounds which have been later concised and the concised grounds reads as under:- 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in confirming the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147. 2. Ld. CTT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming disallowance of the expenses of Rs. 64365/- claimed in Sarvoday Hospital without considering the fact that there is temporary full period in the business due to ill health of the appellant. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts confirming action of A.O. in treating the rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to disallowance of expenses claimed with respect to Sarvoday Hospital. It is Assessee's contention that during the year due to ill health of the Assessee no profession was carried out by the Assessee but however we find that ld. CIT(A) while upholding disallowance has noted that Assessee was specifically asked regarding carrying out the medical profession in future years along with the proof of the same but no evidence was placed by Assessee before ld. CIT(A). He has further noted that it was submitted that an agreement was entered between Assessee and Smt. Ramilaben Patel, wife of the Assessee and as per the agreement Smt. Ramilaben Patel was given permission to keep patients at Sarvoday Hospital at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/-. Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the rent figures of the agreement entered by the Assessee with Smt. Ramilaben Patel, his wife, did not match with the rent receipts as shown in the Profit and Loss account of Sarvoday Hospitals. Before us, ld. A.R. has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has placed any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome is to be assessed under the head 'House Property' in accordance with section 23 and 24, claim of expenses of Rs. 6,21,441/- including depreciation of Rs. 3,23,473/- is not admissible. It is directed that the rental income of Rs. 2,56,500/- be assessed under the head House Property and instead of depreciation alone, entire expenses of Rs. 6,21,441/-be disallowed. 10. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 11. Before us, ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that Assessee has earned business/professional income in the form of rent from letting out of business premises and hence Assessee was eligible to claim depreciation. It was further submitted that even though there was no exports during the year, Assessee has not closed its activities and that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in changing the head of "income from business" to "income from house property". The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and ld. CIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present ground, Assessee is aggrieved for the reason that the rental inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears and in A.Y. 1999-2000, genuineness of agricultural operations has not been accepted even at appellate stage. Following appeal desicion in appellant's case for A.Y.1999-2000, action of Assessing Officer in accepting agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- only and in treating balance of Rs. 10,31,686/- as income from other source is confirmed. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 15. Before us, ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that A.O holding facts of the year under consideration being identical to A.Y. 2001-02, adopted the parameters followed in A.Y. 2001-02 and accepted Rs. 2,50,000/- as agricultural income and the balance as income from other sources. She submitted that while deciding the issue for A.Y. 2001-02, Hon'ble ITAT confirmed the addition of Rs. 8 lac as income from other sources and accepted the balance income as agricultural income. She therefore submitted that applying the ratio of the in Assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02, approximately 10% of agricultural income may be reduced to take care of the defects in the accounts of agricultur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd facts in not appreciating the fact that without recording proper satisfaction as required under the provision of section 147 of the I. T. Act, the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is absolutely illegal and such reopening be declared as bad in law. 3. The Learned authorities below erred in not appreciating in proper perceptive the objection raised by the appellant to the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Hence the issuance of notice u/s 148 may be declared as illegal and void ab initio. 4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating the submissions of the appellant in respect of the genuineness of the Agricultural Income shown in the return this year and in confirming the action of the A.O. in treating the agricultural income of Rs. 2,23,646/- shown this year, as the income of the appellant from other sources. 5. The Learned C. I. T. (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that under similar circumstances, the Agricultural Income shown by the appellant in A.Y. 201-02 was accepted by the Lt. CIT (Appeal) - IV Baroda [ the Predecessor CIT (A) ] vide her order dated 31.10.2007. after taking into consideration the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
