9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and during the financial year ending 31.3.99 from KIADB. The land is located at No.58, Bommasandra, Bangalore. The HUF had disclosed this fact in the return filed by it for the assessment year 1999-2000. It is further submitted the HUF constructed a factory building during the financial year 2003-04 and let it out to M/s Quest Technologies. 2.1 The rental income was disclosed in the return filed by HUF for the asst. year 2004-05 and 2005-06. The PAN of HUF is AAAHM8739G. M/s Quest Technologies had deducted tax at source on the rent paid. While issuing TDS certificate the tenant quoted the PAN of the assessee-individual. 2.2 The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny for the asst. year 2005-06. The learned AO noticed the discrepancy in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of assessee-individual just because the tenant has wrongly quoted the PAN of the assesseeindividual instead of PAN of HUF. (4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the rental income is to be assessed in the hands of assessee-individual as no rental income has been disclosed in respect of property no.58 in the return filed by HUF for assessment year 1999-00 ignoring the fact that the factory building was constructed in 2003-04 and let-out from assessment year 2004-05 onwards. 3. The learned AR reiterated the stand taken before the authorities below. He also produced statement of income of HUF for the asst. year 2004-05 and 2005-06, wherein the HUF had declared rental income received from plot No.58, Bomm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Here, the lessee is clearly mentioned as the assessee-individual and not as the HUF. The possession certificate issued by the KIADB also mentioned Shri M Sathyanarayana, the individual. Therefore, we are of the view that the property in question is owned by the individual -assessee and it is to be assessed in his hands. For declaration of rental income from plot No.58, in hand HUF, it is for the HUF-assessee to take remedial measures, such as rectification etc.
5. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the view the order of authorities below, is correct and in accordance with law and we uphold the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 18th Sept, 2009. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
