9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and office repair expenses as not being personal in nature, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 3 lakh. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in the subsequent year, the Assessing Officer has restricted the disallowance to 20% of such expenses. Considering the totality of the case, disallowance of ₹ 3 lakhs appears to be on higher side. Therefore, restrict the disallowance to ₹ 2.5 lakh. The ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.1937/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2018 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.DR ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year and, therefore, he did not have any rental income from the same. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He observed that the assessee has declared NAV of ₹ 10,80,000/- of this property during F.Y. 2011-12 relating to assessment year 2012-13. Considering the last year s rental value, i.e., annual letable value as declared by the assessee, the Assessing Officer considered the NAV of the property for the current year at ₹ 10,80,000/-. After allowing statutory deduction u/s 24 and interest on home loan of ₹ 5,56,391/-, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,99,609/- to the total income. 3.1 Before CIT(A), the assessee strongly challenged the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable : 5. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that the property in question was not let out during the year due to non-availability of suitable tenant. No other benefit was derived by the assessee from this property during the year under consideration. Relying on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi (2013) 139 ITD 504 and various other decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. He also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Saif Ali Khan Pataudi vs. ACIT (2018) 53 CCH 486 (Mum. Trib.); and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year for whole of the year. In these circumstances the Assessing Officer was fully justified in adding the net annual value based on the last years rental value of ₹ 10,80,000/- to the total income of the appellant. 8. From the above, it is clear that the ld.CIT(A) has not at all considered the provisions of section 23(1)(c) when the property remained vacant throughout the year. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in the light of the provisions of section 23(1)(c) and in the light of the various decisions cited before him. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall decide the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1,18,895/- Total Rs.11,48,917/- 11. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged the same on the ground that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is without any basis. Further, in the subsequent year, the Assessing Officer has restricted such disallowance to 20%. However, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under:- 5.3 I have carefully considered the appellant s submissions. Out of the expenses disallowed, it is seen from the details tabulated para 5.1 above that the expenses on account of machinery repair and office repair are only for the purpose of business and have no personal element. Out of the remaining expenses of vehicle running, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
