9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round No. 2 listed in the concise grounds is concerned, it is revealed from the records that the assessee had not raised this ground before the CIT(A) and in the original grounds taken before the Tribunal. The assessee has also not made any written or verbal petition as required under ITAT r. 11 for admission of additional ground, and, therefore, the same is rejected as unadmitted. 3. So far as the ground No. 1 is concerned, I have heard the parties. 4. The brief facts, which are common for all the three appeals and as have been revealed from the records, are that the assessee, Shri Baijnath Prasad Goyal had constructed a house in Govindpuri, Gwalior, in March, 1996, and had leased out a portion of it to his wife and minor son on a mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from his wife in additional consideration of rent. In fact, as per confirmation placed on record, the loan was given by Smt. Sudha Goyal to the appellant on 15th July, 1996, that is, subsequent to the execution of the lease deed. So, the consideration for which the property was leased out by the appellant was for Rs. 1,000 per month and not for Rs. 1,750 as claimed by the appellant. This part of the house property has been given on rent to the Nagrik Sahakari Bank @ Rs. 7,282 per month. This is seven times of the lease rent given by the appellant to the lessees. The records make it clear that the property was given on rent to the bank after two months of executing the lease deed. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the AO has rightly rejected the returns and has correctly applied s. 27(i) of the Act, while computing the total income of the appellant. The assessment orders for all the three years are, therefore, confirmed." 6. It was in view of above facts and circumstances of the case that the counsel for the assessee submitted that the lease transaction in question was outside the scope of the provisions of s. 27(i) of the Act because there was no transfer of the property or interest in the property from assessee to his wife or minor son. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the fair market value of the premises cannot be more than the municipal valuation and for this purpose, has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as enjoyment of premises and, therefore, the transaction was well within the definition of the term "transfer" as provided under s. 2(47) of the Act and consequently, was transfer as envisaged in the provisions of s. 27(i) of the Act. 11. The next question then crops up is as to whether the transaction was for adequate consideration or not, and the answer to this question, in my opinion, is self-evident from the fact that the property in question has been let out to bank (by lessees) on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,282 as against the lease rent of Rs. 1,000 charged by the assessee from the lessees, i.e., the transaction was definitely not for adequate consideration. Further, it is another admitted fact that the leasing transaction was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
