9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted assessment is clearly timed barred. The reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act is therefore clearly bad in law and requires to be quashed. Once it is found that the action under section 147 of the Act is not sustainable in law, the consequent order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is clearly void at the threshold. Consequently, the reassessment order so passed is set aside and cancelled.- Decided in favour of assessee. ALV of property (deemed let out property) under section 23(1)(a) - enhancing the deemed income by way of substituted ALV - Held that:- No justification for the action of the lower authorities in disregarding the municipal rateable value for determination of estimated ALV and substitution thereof by some expected rent based on some unauthentic information. Consequently, the action of the deserves to be set aside and the additions made on this score requires to be cancelled. - Decided in favour of the assessee. Long term capital loss on transfer of mutual fund units - Held that:- As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, certain evidences are alleged to have not been produced to support the revised claim before the lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no failure on the part of the appel lant which would justify the reopening of assessment u/s 147. Hence, the reopening of assessment is bad in law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment amounted to change of opinion and hence the reopening of assessment was bad in law. 5. The appel lant prays that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 may be held to bad in law and the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 may be annul led. B. Without prejudice to the above, assessing income from house property at ₹ 3,09,372/- as against the returned Income from house property of ₹ 155/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of the A.O assessing the income f rom house property at ₹ 3,09,372/- as against the returned income f rom house property of ₹ 155/- . 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appel lant had only 50% shares in f lat No. 15 and the balance 50% was owned by the appel lant s mother, who was residing in the said f lat and hence the said f lat could not be let out by the appel lant. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessment u/s 147 of the Income tax Act . 5. With reference to the aforestated reasons recorded, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that it is obvious from the reasons recorded itself that all the relevant facts were placed at the time of the original assessment and the A.O had completed assessment based on such facts. It was inter-alia made known to the A.O that assessee owns two properties at the time of the original assessment. Therefore, the taxability of deemed rental income with reference to one of properties in terms of Sec. 23(1) r.w.s 23(4) of the IT Act was presumably present to the mind of the A.O. Thereafter, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that from a bare reading of the reasons recorded, it will be apparent that there is no allegation whatsoever on the part of the A.O as to whether there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material fats fully and truly at the time of original assessment which is a condition precedent in terms of first proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act which is squarely applicable in the facts of the case. It was contended that in the absence of express allegation of non-disclosure of material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot sustainable in law, the consequent order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 is clearly void at the threshold. Consequently, the reassessment order so passed is set aside and cancelled. 9. In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed. ITA No. 5689/Mum/2016, A.Y 2012-13 10. As per the grounds of appeal, assessee has sought to impugn the action of the CIT(A) (i) in sustaining the addition under the head income from house property; and (ii) determination of long term capital loss on transfer of mutual fund units at ₹ 5,95,975/- as against revised claim of the assessee at ₹ 22,18,723/-. 11. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the assessee has declared annual lettable value (ALV) from house property at ₹ 217/- (net) having regard to the municipal rentable value. The A.O, however, has substituted the ALV determined as per the municipal rentable value by so called reasonable and expected rent notionally valued by the A.O at ₹ 8,00,317/- for the purpose of determination of taxable income from house property u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee next referred to various judic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n transfer of mutual fund units. 16. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, certain evidences are alleged to have not been produced to support the revised claim before the lower authorities. In the circumstances we consider it expedient to restore the issue back to the file of the A.O to enable the assessee to avail afresh opportunity for corroboration of the revised loss so claimed and decide the issue in accordance with law denovo. Needless to say, the A.O shall adjudicate the issue after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 17. Consequently, the ground raised in this regard is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 5007/Mum/2017, A.Y 2013-14 19. In parity with the discussion in ITA No. 5698/Mum/2016 for the A.Y 2012-13 in preceding paragraphs, the solitary grievance of the assessee concerning addition under head house property is allowed. The A.O is accordingly directed to decide the addition of ₹ 8,64,108/- made under the head Income from house property . 20. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 5007/Mum/2017 is accordingly allowed. 21. In the result, all the appeals filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
