9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the learned CIT(A) erred in conforming addition of Rs. 10,88,446/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that Appellant has shown lower rent income in Return of Income. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that actual rent income earned and accrued to Appellant has been shown in Return of Income and no further addition is called for. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding action of Assessing Officer for assessing rent income of Rs. 18,14,076/- entirely in the hands of Appellant as against real income of Rs. 7,25,630/- shown by Appellant without appreciating the fact that other co-owners/persons have already show their share in rent income in their respective Retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly distributed between the assessee and Mrs. Lataben. TDS was deducted in similar manner and Form 16 was issued in these two names. However, while filing the return of income, the assessee reflected rental income to the extent of his own share of 20% only and rest of the rent was stated to be distributed amongst the remaining 3 co-owners in the ratio of their respective co-ownership. At the same time, the assessee claimed full TDS credit of Rs. 3,08,313/- as reflected in Form 16 which led Ld. AO to demand explanation from the assessee. 3.4. Upon perusal of documents, it came to light that the said land was actually purchased by the assessee jointly with his mother Mrs. Lataben vide sale deed dated 17/04/2008 which was later on leased out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into between the co-owners on 21/10/2011 wherein the assessee and Mrs. Lataben paid a sum of Rs. 35 Lacs to Mrs. Chaulaben D. Doshi which would substantiate the fact that the money was advanced by Mrs. Chaulaben D. Doshi to facilitate the purchase of property and therefore the right of Mrs. Chaulaben D. Doshi and Mrs. Darshnaben A. Patel was undisputed. Considering the same, the proportion of rent as offered by respective co-owners were accepted by Ld. AO. 6. Au Contraire, Ld. DR submitted that the said assessment was framed after the date of impugned order and further the issue of TDS credit would require to be reappreciated. 7. Upon due consideration of factual matrix, the bench formed an opinion that considering the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
