9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the learned A.O. narrated so many things in the assessment order - HELD THAT:- There is fluctuation in the salary income so reported by the assessee from year to year and the said salary income is also claimed to have been received from different institutions - it is important to determine which all institutions, the assessee worked for during the year under consideration and how much salary he has been earned during the year. In absence of sufficient facts on record, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the AO who shall examine the same afresh after calling from information from the respective institutions as well as after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the Ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Determination of rental income derived by the assessee from its various properties - HELD THAT:- where the only property which has been let out is House No. 756, Pratap Nagar, Kota, the annual rental value of ₹ 1.2 lakhs which is consistent with earlier year reporting of rental income from the said property should therefore be considered in absence of anything contrary on record. In respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words salary ₹ 8,59,515.00/- the assessee declared salary as per certificate ₹ 1,80,000.00/- thus the ld. AO made addition of ₹ 6,79,515.00/- the ld. CIT(A) have not discussed in details restrict the salary at ₹ 6,00,000.00/- thereby sustained the addition of ₹ 4,20,000.00/- based on revised return. 3. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law facts in not allowing the loss in house property as claimed by the assessee apart from that, he assessed income from House Property ₹ 3,17,940.00/-. However the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the ground of the assessee house property loss was restricted to Rs. (-) 11,872.00/- in place of Rs. (-) 3,08,872.00/- thereby sustained the addition of ₹ 2,97,000.00/-. 4. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law fact in making the addition of ₹ 12,209.00/- under income from other sources, the ld. CIT(A) also erred in sustaining the said addition. 5. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law facts in disallowance of ₹ 18,75,50.00/- out of Hostel expenses the ld. CIT(A) sustained ₹ 75,000.00/- i.e. part of that. 6. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law facts in not considering dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l return and assessment order which have no base at all. In view of above we submit to allow the revised return the ground based thereon. 5. Regarding Ground No. 2, the ld. AR submitted that this is the addition made by estimating that the assessee would have received so much salary from his employer. In case of salary, there must be two persons - one employer and the other employee. At the time of assessment the assessee has given Form No. 16 that how much he received the salary during the year, but the learned A.O. narrated so many things in the assessment order and it shows that he proceeded with a prejudiced mind. What he states is that in the AY 2010 - 11 (ignored AY 2011 - 12) salary was ₹ 7,25,863/- and in this year it is NIL. He has not looked into the Return. In the Return the salary has been shown ₹ 1,80,000/- which is as per form No. 16 issued by the employer. On this issue the learned A.O. has no authority to question why it is reduced, how it can be given more since in the year under consideration the employee has worked in other school. This is the mutual thing between an employer and employee and the most important thing is that when the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was quite different, in this year he has let out 2 rooms to students for 10 months of his house no. 756, Pratap Nagar, hence the basis taken by Ld. A.O. of A.Y. 2010-11 is not of same house. Further the Ld. CIT(A) have not gone in to details of rent, property, repayment hence sustained the part of the addition based on A.O.'s order. We thus submit that the actual rent be considered and allow the ground of the assessee. 7. Regarding Ground No. 5, the ld. AR submitted that in relation to hostel income, complete details were filed. We have given receipts and explained the account. There was a receipt of ₹ 11,51,600/-, out of that the assessee has shown income to the extent of ₹ 4,02,570/- which is around 35%. We submit that there are so many hostels in Kota City and income shown by us (i.e. 35%) is much more than the income shown by other hostel owners. Most of the hostel owners are showing income U/s 44AD i.e. 8 - 10% in comparison to that the income shown by the Assessee is much more. Hence, by mentioning that certain expenses could not be vouched or verified, the learned A.O. disallowed ₹ 1,87,500/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee has already shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, any person having furnished a return u/s 139(1) or not 139(2) may furnish a revised return at any time before the assessment is made. Therefore, no revised return can be filed u/s 139(5) of the Act in a case where the return was originally filed belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act. In the instant case, given that the return was originally filed u/s 139(4) of the Act, the same cannot be revised u/s 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee on 29.06.2013 has rightly not been considered by the Assessing Officer. The said action of the Assessing Officer is also in consonance with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT 86 Taxman 122 (SC) which has been relied by the ld. CIT(A). In light of same, the ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. 12. Regarding Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax salary income of ₹ 8,59,515/- and ld. CIT(A) restricting the same to ₹ 6,00,000/- as against 1.8 lakh claimed to be received by the assessee during the year. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee was a regular employee as well as Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gar, Baran, Rajasthan, an amount of ₹ 1.8 lakh has been shown to have been paid by the said institution to the assessee during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year. The return for A.Y 2013-14 is not on record however, the AO has stated in his order that the assessee has received and has shown salary income of ₹ 10,55,858/-. Therefore, we find that there is fluctuation in the salary income so reported by the assessee from year to year and the said salary income is also claimed to have been received from different institutions. Therefore, we find that it is important to determine which all institutions, the assessee worked for during the year under consideration and how much salary he has been earned during the year. In absence of sufficient facts on record, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the AO who shall examine the same afresh after calling from information from the respective institutions as well as after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Regarding Ground No. 3, the limited issued under consideration relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o tax for the impugned assessment year. In the result, Ground No 3 of assessee s appeal is disposed off. 17. Regarding Ground No. 4, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has not been pressed this, hence, the same is dismissed being not pressed. 18. Regarding Ground No. 5, briefly, the facts of the case are that the AO has made disallowance of ₹ 25% of expenses claimed to have been incurred by the assessee as part of its running of Hostel premises which have been rented to the students in absence of books of accounts and other details produced before him which on appeal has been restricted by the ld. CIT(A) at ₹ 75,000/-. 19. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has returned a profit of 35% which is quite high as compared to profit shown by other similar situated assessees providing hostel premises to students in the city of Kota and it was accordingly submitted that the disallowance so sustained by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. We find that 35% profit rate is a reasonable profit rate so disclosed by the assessee and even though the assessee has not submitted the books of accounts, estimation of profits nee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
