9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as under: - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of income from House Property in respect of Flat No. 72, 'L' Block, in Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400006 at Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of income from House Property in respect of office premises at Nariman Point, Mumbai at Rs. 2,00,000/- per month which was being sued by a company in which the appellant is a director. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the head Income from House Property in the following manner: - No. Details of Property Rental income reflected by the assessee Income Assessed 1. Flat No. 72, L- Block, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade Rs.25,000/- per month Rs.2 Lacs per month 2. Gala Nos. 52 & 53, Industrial Unit, Submill Compound, Lower Parel Rs.5000/- per month Rs.3.39 Lacs per month 3. Office Premises at Raheja Centre, Nariman Point Nil Rs.2 Lacs per month 4. Shops / Units at Hilton Centre, Belapur, Navi Mumbai Nil Rs.5.60 Lacs per month 5. Flat at Seawood Estate Co-op Housing Society Ltd, Nerul, Navi Mumbai Nil Rs.0.35 Lacs per month 2.2 Brief facts leading to enhanced estimation are that the property situated at Flat No.72, L B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nariman Point was stated to be leased to the same corporate entity without any rent. The Ld. AO worked out rental income of Rs. 2 Lacs per month against this property. 2.3 The various shops / unites situated at Hilton Centre, Belapur, Navi Mumbai were claimed by the assessee to be used for the purpose of his partnership business. However, the said fact could not be substantiated. Accordingly, the income against the same was estimated at Rs. 5.60 Lacs per month. 2.4 No income was reflected against property listed at serial number-5. However, finding that the possession of the same was already obtained by the assessee during January, 2009, the income against the same was estimated at Rs. 0.35 Lacs per month. 2.5 The above estimated rental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of judgment of this Tribunal rendered in Indira S.Jain [21 Taxmann.com 471]. However, relying upon the same decision, it was held that addition against shops situated at Hilton Centre, Navi Mumbai were not justified since the shops were leased out to a partnership firm namely Prajax Hospitality and therefore, the same could be said to be used for the purpose of assessee's business. The addition against property listed at serial number-5 was confirmed since the same was not, at all, let out during impugned AY and therefore, not eligible for vacancy allowance in terms of Section 23(1)(c). Aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue is under appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri H.S.Raheja, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee, in this regard, stand dismissed. 5.3 The office premise situated at Raheja Centre, Nariman Point was stated to be leased out to a corporate entity in which the assessee was a director. No rental income was reflected by the assessee against the same. It is settled law that corporate entity is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law and the business carried out by the corporate entity could not be said to be the business of shareholders / directors. Therefore, the reasoning that the premise was being used for assessee's business, hold no water. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to rebut the estimated rental rates adopted by Ld. AO in violation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready taken the possession of the same during January, 2009 and the flat was never let out at any point of time since inception. In such a case, the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) could not apply to the fact of the case since for the applicability of the same, the property should have actually been let out at some point of time, which is not the case here. Therefore, the notional rental value of the same was required to be brought to tax since under law only one property, at the option of the assessee, could be termed as self-occupied property whereas all the other properties are deemed to be let out. Therefore, while upholding the stand of lower authorities in assessing the notional value of this property, the matter stand remitted back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
