9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case , the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the AO and to the extent it is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in view of bonafide explanation given by the assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the instant case is covered by explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has come out with a bonafide explanation to explain the reasons for non-inclusion of rental income in her return of income filed with the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh For The Revenue : Shri S.C. Tiwari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of designing and supervision , and had also earned income from house property and interest income. The A.O. during course of quantum assessment proceedings observed from the bank account of the assessee that she has received rental income amounting to ₹ 11,05,000/- from Mumbai International Air Port Private Limited. On perusal of the computation of income, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has only offered rental income of ₹ 8,28,750/- from the said party in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee was asked to explain the same and in reply the assessee submitted that part of the rental income to the tune of ₹ 2,76,250/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in quantum assessment vide assessment order dated 29-12-2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the additions made by the A.O. vide appellate orders dated 16.12.2011. The said order of learned CIT(A) w.r.t. quantum proceedings upholding and sustaining the addition made by the learned AO is placed in paper book page 70-72. The matter went up to the Tribunal with respect to the quantum proceedings and before the Tribunal the assessee requested to grant permission for withdrawal of the quantum appeal and accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn in ITA No. 2054/Mum/2012 for the assessment year 2008- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by the appellate orders dated 04-07-2014 passed by the ld. CIT(A) confirming penalty as indicated above, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee s son Mr. Vivek Kohli is the co-owner of the property as an amount of ₹ 25 lacs was invested by him on the same property. The ld. Counsel drew our attention to the paper book whereby the assessee s balance sheet is placed whereby the assessee has shown an investment of ₹ 66,96,000/- as at 31-03-2008 in the flat at Shyamkunj held jointly with her son Mr Vivek Kohli , as against the purchase price of ₹ 90,00,000/- of the said flat( page 11,37-51/PB).. The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved that the said property was purchased for ₹ 90,00,000/- as borne out from property ownership agreement dated 29-12-2007(pb/page 36-51) and the assessee has reflected ₹ 66,96,000/- in her Balance Sheet as investment in the said flat(pb/page 11) and stated that the assessee s son Mr. Vivek Kohli had invested a sum of ₹ 25 lacs out of total acquisition cost of ₹ 90 lacs, and consequently he is entitled for the part of the rental income in accordance with proportion of his share in the said property. However, it is stated that Mr. Vivek Kohli is an NRI and has not filed his return of income as he is not having other income chargeable to tax in India. Thus, under the above circumstances, the quantum additions were up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
