9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding year i.e. 31/3/2007 relevant to assessment year 2007-08, the assessee has shown two house properties one located at Bayana and another at Jaipur - Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment proceedings I find it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall investigate with regard to the claim of the assessee that he is not having any property at Bayana and after ascertaining the correct fact, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue accordingly in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ITA No. 321/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2017 - SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Madhukar Garg (CA) For The Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of ₹ 18,47,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was finalized at an income of ₹ 20,26,440/-. Thereafter the case was reopened by issuing notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act and the assessment was finalized U/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of ₹ 24,93,750/-. 3. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. In the ground No. 1 of appeal, the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings, in this regard, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the reassessment proceedings are illegal and unjustified. The assessee is a senior citizen. Order U/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance sheet filed for preceding year i.e. 31/3/2007 relevant to assessment year 2007-08, the assessee has shown two house properties one located at Bayana and another at Jaipur. Therefore, on the basis of that, the assessee s claim for exemption U/s 54F of the Act with regard to the capital gain arise on the sale of land at Bhim Nagar, Bayana is to be considered, in light of that fact hence, in my considered view, the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment proceedings. I hold that it was definitely not on the basis of change of opinion as canvassed by the ld AR, therefore, the ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal stands dismissed. 7. In the ground No. 2 of the appeal, the assessee has challenged the confirming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rental income under declared. Accordingly, I confirm the addition of ₹ 15,420 made by the AO under this head. 8. I have heard both the sides on this issue. I find that the ld. AR was not able to controvert the finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) that the appellant has declared rental income of ₹ 23,74,252/- from D Amico Ship Ishima India Pvt. Ltd. as against rental income of ₹ 23,96,280/- received from the tenant. The assessee s claimed that the difference was on account of service liability in the month of June, 2007 is not a justified claim. I hold that the rental income has to be assessed as much as it has been received i.e. ₹ 23,96,280/-. The assessee cannot make any deduction for service taxas claimed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
