9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mrs. Darshnaben A. Patel was undisputed. Considering the same, the proportion of rent as offered by respective co-owners were accepted by Ld. AO. 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. Upon due consideration of factual matrix, the bench formed an opinion that considering the assessment framed for AY 2010-11 which is subsequent to the date of impugned order, it would be in the fitness of things to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter stand remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. - I.T.A. No. 2478/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2020 - Mahavir Prasad, Member (J) And Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments advanced by both the parties. We have also perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paper book. The documents relied upon by Ld. AR has duly been considered. 3.1. Briefly stated, the assessee being resident individual was assessed for year under consideration u/s. 143(3) on 15/12/2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 12.72 Lacs after certain adjustments as against returned income of ₹ 5.10 Lacs filed by the assessee on 27/01/2010. 3.2. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee purchased a plot of land at Block No. 461, 462 465 within local limits of Gram Panchayat, Taluka Sanathal, Distt. Ahmedabad (in short 'property'). The share of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Darshnaben A. Patel and Mrs. Chaulaben D. Doshi wherein the assessee and his mother received a sum of ₹ 12.04 Lacs ₹ 6.02 Lacs from Mrs. Chaulaben D. Doshi and Mrs. Darshnaben A. Patel respectively and it was decided to share the rent in the ratio of 20% each to the assessee, Mrs. Lataben Mrs. Darshnaben A. Patel whereas the balance 40% would belong to Mrs. Chaulaben D. Doshi. In the light of these facts, the MOU was termed as mere after thought to divert the rental income which was fortified by the fact that MOU was stated to be made on 02/05/2008 on a stamp paper dated 07/05/2008. It was noted that the assessee failed to produce the return of income of other 3 co-owners also to show that they offered rental income to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
