9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith this appeal which the assessee has preferred against the order dated 29.05.2009 of the CIT-XIII, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2006-07 and has questioned the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeals :- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 1,43,325/- as notional income under the head Income from house propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee owns more than one house property. The A.O. further found that the assessee has not offered income from house property. The A.O. sought explanation from the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has taken possesssion of the property in September, 2005, the A.O. calculated the income from house property for the period from the September, 2005 to till the end of the financial year and after allowing the statutory deduction @ 30% made an addition of ₹ 1,43,325/- and in respect of shop at Mahavir Market, which was claimed to be used by the partnership firm of M/s. Lakhmichand Coov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete the furniture work and immediately let out the property and accordingly pleaded that the notional value adopted by the A.O. is erroneous on the facts of the case. 6. The learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is not in dispute that the assessee took possession only in the month o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would qualify for the exemption provided u/s.22(2). We find that the facts of the present appeal are identical with the facts in as much as in the present appeal also the property of the assessee is being used by the firm in which the as assessee is also a partner. Respectfully, following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the addition of ₹ 1,68,000/- is deleted. 8. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
