9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property as self-occupied property. AO held that as there was no claim by filling revised income, it was not entertained. On appeal before ld. CIT (A) the issue arose about allowbility of same claim but CIT(A) has held that the ground no. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Ground no. 1.1 and 1.2 are with respect to considering Ambey Valley property as self occupied property and ground no. 1.3 is determining deemed annual value of the house property at the rate of 7%. CIT(A) has upheld that the 7% of cost of property as annual value taxable u/s 23, against the assessee and therefore only others ground are which are allowed by him. There is no reason given by him. Therefore, we restore ground back to the file of Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1799/Mum/2023 is filed by Shri Sunil Pandurang Mantri (the Assessee/Appellant) against the appellate order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [herein after referred as the CIT(A) ] dated 21.04.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred as the Act ] dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai [herein after referred as the AO ] was partly allowed. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred appeal before us. 02. Facts culled out from records shows that assessee is an individual, filed his return of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost was Rs. 54,40,231/- and accordingly on the total cost of house property of ₹9,64,92,231/- annual value was determined at the rate of 7% amounting to ₹ 67,54,456/-. The deduction at the rate of 30% for repairs was allowed and income from house property was assessed at ₹47,28,119/-. The assessee has also claimed deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act of ₹37,26,616/- against the deemed rental income of Ambey Valley property as originally the assessee treated the same premises as self occupied and therefore the annual would be nil. The assessee was asked to provide proof regarding interest on loan from property, in response to that the assessee submitted that originally the interest paid of ₹ 37,27,616/- was clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- under income from house property. 04. The AO further found that the assessee has sold property being flat at Mantri Park Bloom 1601 for ₹ 78 lacs, but in ROI sales consideration was shown at Rs. 11540800/-, the market value of that is ₹ 94,43,000/- and therefore the difference of ₹20,97,800/- according to the AO should be taxed u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted that there is error in filling of return of income originally where ₹1,15,40,800/- was taken as sale consideration. However, the property was sold for ₹78 lacs as per the agreement to sale dated 28.04.2015. Reason was stated by assessee that assessee has sold the property below the market price, as the market condition of real estate sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 14,68,680/- the same was dismissed. e. With respect to the addition u/s 68 of the Act, he held that the claimed of the lower sale value of property at ₹ 78 lacs against consideration was stated in the original return of ₹ 1,15,40,800/-. He held that as the claim was made in the assessment proceedings and not by filling by a revised return it was not admissible. 07. Accordingly, the appellate order was passed on 21.04.2023 against which the assessee is aggrieved. 08. Though the assessee has raised three grounds of appeal but during the course of hearing, the assessee did not press the ground no. 2 against the interest disallowance. Therefore, ground 2 is dismissed. 09. The first ground of appeal is to conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y property as self-occupied property u/s 23(2) of the Act is allowable or not. While deciding so the ld. CIT(A) may also give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as the AO on the issue. Accordingly, the ground no.1 is allowed with above direction. 010. Ground no.3 is with respect to addition u/s 68 of the Act of ₹20,97,500/-, claim of the assessee is that in the original return of income sale consideration was wrongly shown of ₹150,40,800/- whereas it is claimed by the assessee that property is sold at ₹ 78 lacs only, the market value of the property was stated to be ₹ 94,43,000/-. Before us, the assessee has also not submitted any evidence that how the sale consideration of Rs. 1.15 crore was mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
