9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO exceeded is jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148. 3. That the AO has wrongly determined the income at Rs. 14,14,030/-. 4. That the authority below has wrongly assessed rental income as income from other sources and disallowed deduction u/s 24(a) which was allowable in law. 5. That the written submissions should have been considered in proper context. 6. That the penalty proceedings have wrongly been initiated. 7. That interest u/s 234D has wrongly been charged and is challenged. 8. That interest u/s 244 should have not been withdrawn. 9. That order of authority is arbitrary, illegal and is challenged. 10. That penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 4,17,145/- u/s 24(a) of the Act and has also declared the taxable income under the wrong head. He, therefore, reopened the case of the assessee HUF for making reassessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act after recording the reasons. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee on 10.02.2009, in response to which, the assessee HUF filed the return of income declaring the same income of Rs. 9,26,790/- under the same head. The assessement was completed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 24.12.2009 at an assessed income of Rs. 14,14,030/-. While framing the re-assessment, the AO treated the lease rental income declared by the assessee HUF as income from other sources, as against income from House Prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he result, grounds of appeal no. 3 & 4 taken by the assessee HUF are dismissed." 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated before this Bench that the stand of the assessee that the assessment order, as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is based on wrong information provided by the assessee's tenant M/s. Larson & Toubro Limited, as is amply supported by the letter dated 10.11.2015 from the DCIT, Circle-IV, Jalandhar to the assessee for the AY 2008-09 and letter dated 05.09.2015 (APB-41) addressed by Larfarge India Pvt. Ltd., ( earlier known as Larson & Toubro Limited ) to the DCIT, Circle-IV, Jalandhar. It has been submitted that Lafarge India Pvt. Limited, i.e., the erstwhile M/s. Larson & Toubro Limited, the aforewITA mentioned tenant of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir reply (supra), have stated to be of the building in question. 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, while relying on the impugned order, has submitted that the assessee seeks to place reliance on fresh evidence, which ought not to be done at this stage. 9. Having heard the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, I find that the assessment for the year under consideration was made vide order dated 24.12.2009. The order under appeal is dated 14.10.2013. Both the Taxing Authorities have decided against the assessee on the basis that as per the lease agreement, there does not exist any building on the land leased out. Per-contra, as per the aforesaid letters of 05.09.2015 and 10.11.2015 of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., (e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
