9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) IV, Mumbai relating to assessment year 2007-08. Grounds of appeal of the assessee read as follows: 1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming action of AO of taxing the notional value of second flat even though both the flats are used as one house and there is no separate kitchen. Hence, CIT(A) should have considered both flat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as one flat and both the flats are self occupied by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, submitted that value of flat No.10 cannot be brought to tax under section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as it has to be considered as self occupied property. The assessee filed certificate of the society to show that flat No.9 10 were used as one flat for self occupation by the Assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Suresh C. Sadarangani vs. ACIT (2009) 33 SOT 428 (Mum). In the aforesaid case there were two flats one above the other in two floors. Both the flats were occupied as one property with a connecting stair case within the flats. The ITAT held that both the flats were to be considered as self occupied. The CIT(A) however did not agree with the plea of the assessee for the following reasons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal on this ground is dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We are of the view that in the light of the undisputed fact that both the flats were combined and used as one flat they are to be considered as self occupied. The fact that there were two separate agreement for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
