9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The total rent for the year have been received at Rs. 2,33,280/- and 50% of the rent has been offered for taxation by the assessee in her return of income. The balance 50% rent being in the hands of daughter of the assessee, Ms. C. Sruthi Reddy, Assessing Officer asked the assessee to establish with documentary evidence that 50% of the share in the said property has been transferred to the daughter Ms. C. Sruthi Reddy. The assessee failed to submit evidence. The Assessing Officer, therefore, assessed the entire rent in the hands of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,16,640/- being 50% and shown in the hands of daughter of the assessee. 3. The addition was challenged before ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee requested for admission of add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see did not file evidence before Assessing Officer despite giving opportunity therefore, no exceptional circumstances under Rule 46A have been proved, therefore, it was held that assessee could not establish the ownership of Ms. C. Sruthi Reddy on the said property, therefore, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. I have heard rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to PB-32 which is agreement to sell dated 02.12.1987 in respect of the property in question between assessee and M/s Amrutha Estates registered partnership concern through which assessee acquired the property in question in respect of which rent was offered for taxation. The ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to PB- 40 which is agreement to sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be any deviation from the stand taken by the revenue. He has, therefore, submitted that assessee produced sufficient evidence on record to prove ownership of daughter of the assessee therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) should have admitted the same and decided the issue accordingly. He has also referred to various service records of husband of the assessee who is in service of the Punjab Government in which while filing the return for immovable property to the Punjab Government, husband of the assessee has declared the share of his minor daughter and wife in the property return to the Government of Punjab. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below. 5(i) After considering rival submissions and material on record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Corporation 209 CTR 400 held that, "When Assessing Officer was present before ld. CIT(Appeals), did not raise any objection - Rule 46A not violated". 5(ii) In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not object to the agreement to sell dated 13.07.1989, however, he has objected that since no registration deed have been done, despite agreement to sell dated 13.07.1989, therefore, same may not be relied upon. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) in such circumstances should have admitted the additi onal evidence for the purpose of deciding the issue. The ld. counsel for the assessee also produced on record the details of immovable properties filed by husband of the assessee before Punjab Government in which husband of the assessee has declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
