M/s Sasi Enterprises, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1287/CHNY/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8551 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G SEETHARAMAN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1287/MDS/2008 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 M/S SASI ENTERPRISES, NO.36, POES GARDEN, CHENNAI - 600 086. PAN : AACFS 4669 P V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SH. G. SEETHARAMAN, CA ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, SR. STA NDING COUNSEL 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2016 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I, CHENN AI, DATED 10.04.2008 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS 2 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 ADDITION OF ` 2,29,500/- WITH REGARD TO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y AT RAJA NAGAR, NEELANKARAI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE, THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 996-97 FOR ` 3,30,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMED THAT TH ERE WOULD BE ENHANCEMENT OF 20% IN THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE AND THE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT ` 3,96,000/-. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE LET OUT THE PROP ERTY FOR ` 90,000/- AND AFTER REDUCING 1/3 RD STANDARD DEDUCTION PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, DECLARED A SUM OF ` 67,500/-. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1997-98, THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LET OUT AND THE SAME WAS VACAN T. SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000, THE PROPERT Y WAS VACANT. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, IT WAS LET OU T FOR ` 90,000/-. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE RENTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . WHEN THE INCOME RETURNED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS SIM ILAR AS THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE SAME WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE A CT'), ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY FURTHER ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. 3 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, LD. SR . STANDING COUNSEL, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED RENTA L INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AT RAJA NAGAR, NEELAN KARAI, AT ` 90,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE VERY SAME PROPERTY WAS LET OUT FO R ` 3,30,000/-. WHEN THE PROPERTY FETCHED ` 3,30,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996- 97, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE PROPERTY WOULD FETCH ` 90,000/- AFTER FOUR YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE SR. STANDING COUNSEL, UND ER SECTION 23 OF THE ACT, THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WOULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FR OM YEAR TO YEAR OR WHERE THE PROPERTY OR PART OF THE PROPERTIES LET OUT, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE LANDLORD. 4. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, ACCORDING TO THE SR. STAN DING COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPE RTY WAS UNDER ATTACHMENT AND NOBODY WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE SAME ON RENT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. SR. STANDING COUNSEL, ATTACHME NT OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE AN IMPEDIMENT FOR LETTING OUT OF THE PROP ERTY. IF ANY PERSON CLAIMS THAT ATTACHMENT IS AN IMPEDIMENT FOR LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT CAN NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. SR. STANDING COU NSEL, THE 4 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXPECTED TO ESTIMATE THE RENT RECEIVABLE IF IT WAS NOT LET OUT AND IF IT IS LET OUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXPECTED TO ESTIMATE THE REASONABLE RENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF RENTAL VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR 1996-97, ESTIMATED THE SAME BY TAK ING AN INCREASE OF 20%. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. S R. STANDING COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. SR. STANDING COUNSEL PL ACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN N. NATARAJ V. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 277. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE RETURNED A RENTAL INCOME OF ` 90,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND T HAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED RENTAL INCOME OF ` 3,30,000/- FOR THE VERY SAME PROPERTY, THEREFORE, ` 90,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY LOW. ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED 20% INCREASE OF ANNUAL RENTAL VAL UE AND DETERMINED THE SAME AT ` 3,96,000/-. AFTER GIVING 1/3 RD ALLOWANCE FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, HE ESTIMATED THE SAME AT ` 2,97,000/-. 5 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 AFTER REDUCING THE INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 67,500/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF ` 2,29,500/-. THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LET O UT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND IT WAS VACANT. THE SAM E PROPERTY WAS ALSO VACANT FOR 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ATTACHED AND IT COULD NOT BE LET OUT AT MARKET RATE. THE FACT THAT THE PROPE RTY WAS ATTACHED IS NOT IN DISPUTE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS VACANT AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE ITSEL F DECLARED AN INCOME OF ` 2,49,000/- FOR THE VERY SAME HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH W AS ACCEPTED. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 FO R ` 3,30,000/- AND THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR, THEN IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE IN COME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` 2,99,000/- WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY LOWER THAN ` 3,30,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. THEREFORE, ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS A REDUCTION IN THE RENTAL VALUE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT RAJA NAGAR, NEELANKARAI. 6 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 6. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E . FOR 2000- 01, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS LET OUT FOR ` 90,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN ` 90,000/-. ON PRESUMPTION THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE FETCHED MORE THAN ` 90,000/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE SAME FOR ` 3,30,000/- DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED VALUE AT ` 3,96,000/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS OBSERVED EARL IER, IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RENT R ECEIVABLE WOULD BE ` 3,96,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THEN IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE VERY SAME ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RE NTAL VALUE AT ` 2,49,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THEREF ORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE RENTAL VALUE IS NOT CONSTANT AT RA JA NAGAR, NEELANKARAI. 7. THE ASSESSEE NOW CLAIMS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THA T THE PROPERTY WAS ATTACHED, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE L ET OUT. WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER ATTACHMENT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS LEGAL IMPEDIMENT IN LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, NATURALLY THE ATTACHMENT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. WE 7 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 23 OF THE ACT. SECTION 23 OF THE ACT IN CATEGORICAL TERM SAYS THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROP ERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. I N THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY ATTACHED, THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO ESTIMATE REASONABLE RENTAL VALUE FROM Y EAR TO YEAR. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE ATTACHMENT WHILE ESTIMATING THE RENT AT 20% MORE THAN THE RENT FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 1996- 97. 8. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND PART OF SECTION 23 OF T HE ACT, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT, THE ACTUAL RENT RECE IVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ACTUAL RENT OF ` 90,000/- AS INCOME. AFTER REDUCING THE STANDARD DEDUCTION PROV IDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED LY DISCLOSED ` 67,500/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY DISCLOSED THE RENT RECEI VED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ESTIMATE THE SAME ON THE G ROUND THAT THE RENT WOULD BE MORE THAN THE RENT DECLARED FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, ESPECIALLY, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIM SELF ACCEPTED FOR LOWER RENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 8 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF M ADRAS HIGH COURT IN N. NATARAJ (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFO RE MADRAS HIGH COURT, THE BUILDING BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE-HUF W AS LEASED OUT TO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE FIRM IN TURN ENTERED IN TO SEVERAL LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT TENANTS FOR LETTING OUT T HE PROPERTY. THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE FIRM FROM ITS TENANTS WAS THRE E TIMES MORE THAN THE RENT STIPULATED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIRM. THE REVENUE CONTENDED BEFORE THE AUT HORITIES THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE FIRM FROM ITS TENANTS WA S THE AMOUNT REASONABLY EXPECTED TO RECEIVE FROM LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY. THE HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE RENT REALIZED BY THE FIRM FROM THE TENANTS WAS THE FIGURE WHICH COULD BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS SUM, WHICH THE PROPERTY COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTE D TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NO BODYS CASE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LEASED OUT TO OTHER PARTY AND THE OTHE R PARTY HAS LET OUT THE PROPERTY TO SEVERAL TENANTS. THE PROPERTY REMAINED VACANT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE LET OUT THE PROP ERTY BY ITSELF DIRECTLY AND RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 90,000/-. MOREOVER, IF THE ATTACHMENT OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE LET OUT F OR MORE THAN 9 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 ` 90,000/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN N. NATARAJ (SU PRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THOSE FACT UAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE E XTENT OF ` 2,29,500/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE RS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,29,500/- IS DELETED. 10. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO REN TAL INCOME FROM PROPERTY AT NO.14, GEMS COURT, KHADER NAWAZ KH AN ROAD. 11. SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED SHOP AT NO.8 AND 9 AT GEMS COURT, NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ` 1,32,000/- AS RENTAL INCOME FROM THIS PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE RENTAL INCOME, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDI TION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE DOOR NUMBER AND SHOP NUMBER WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME FROM SHOP NO.8 AND 9 AT GEMS COURT. THE GEMS COURT IS SITUATED 10 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 AT DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE OCCUPIED SHOP NO.14 AT G EMS COURT. 12. REFERRING TO FORM 16A ISSUED BY M/S ALLIED CERA MICS CORPORATION, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E, SUBMITTED THAT ` 29,040/- WAS DEDUCTED FROM RENTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF LETTING OUT SHOP NO.8 AND 9 AT NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD. THE CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WENT ONE STEP FURTHER AND FOUND THAT IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER I SSUED BY M/S ALLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LETTER, THE DOOR NUMBER WAS MENTIONED AS 25, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, NUNGAM BAKKAM, CHENNAI-6. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A S UM OF ` 1,32,000/- AS RENTAL INCOME FROM M/S ALLIED CEREMIC S CORPORATION IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE C IT(APPEALS) ARE CONFUSED THEMSELVES WITH REGARD TO DOOR NUMBER MENT IONED IN THE LETTER OF THE TENANT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF SHOP NO.8 AND 9 AT GEMS CO URT, DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI-6. THE TENA NT HAS CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT OF RENT FOR SHOP NO.8 AND 9 A T GEMS COURT. PROBABLY, THE TENANT MAY BE HAVING ANOTHER PREMISES AT DOOR NO.25, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD. ACCORDING TO THE LD . 11 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO CONDUCT FO R THE ENQUIRY. ON MERE ASSUMPTION OR PRESUMPTION, THE CLAIM MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TAX WAS DEDUC TED BY M/S ALLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,32,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, THE L D. SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD WAS LET OUT AND RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME. NO DOUBT, TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY M/S ALLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION. ON THE BASIS OF T DS CERTIFICATE, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE LET OUT SH OP NO.14 AT GERMS COURT TO THE TENANT. THE ADDRESS INDICATED I N THE TDS CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT WHAT WAS LET OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS SHOP NO.14 AND NOT SHOP NO.8 AND 9. THE INCOME FROM SHO P NO.14 WAS NOT DISCLOSED AT ALL. IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER I SSUED BY M/S ALLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LETTER H EAD, THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IS NO.25, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, NUNGAMB AKKAM, CHENNAI-6. BUT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT M/S ALLIE D CERAMICS CORPORATION WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ 12 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 KHAN ROAD. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS R IGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT IS THE OWNER OF SHOP NO.8 AND 9, GEM S COURT AT DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI-6. A PERUSA L OF TDS CERTIFICATE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER-BOOK SHOWS THAT M/S ALLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION ISSUED THE TDS CERTIFIC ATE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX. BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE NUMBER GIVEN AS 14, GEMS COURT, THE REVENUE NOW CLAIMS THAT SHOP NO.14 WAS L ET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME FROM THE SAID SHOP NO.14 WAS NO T DISCLOSED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SE ARE ALL SMALL MATTERS WHICH COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT IS THE OWNER OF SHOP NO S.8 AND 9 AND NOT 14. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT GEMS COURT IS AT NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI-6. WHEN GEMS COURT IS ADM ITTEDLY SITUATED AT DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHE NNAI-6, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(APP EALS) PRESUMED THAT SHOP NO.14 WAS LET OUT BY THE ASSESSE E. THE LOWER 13 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO FIND OUT WHE RE SHOP NO.14 WAS LOCATED. 14. IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, A HOUSE PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WAS IDENTIFIED WITH DOOR NUMBER ALLOTTED B Y LOCAL BODY, NAMELY, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI. THEREFORE, THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DOOR NUMBER ALLOTTED BY CORPORATION OF CHENNAI HAS TO BE GIVEN PRIMARY IMPORTANCE WHILE LO CATING THE PROPERTY. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT GEMS COURT IS LOCATED AT DOOR NO.14, KHAD ER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI-6. THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSE E IS AT SHOP NO.8 AND 9, GEMS COURT, DOOR NO.14, KHADER NAWAZ KH AN ROAD. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TENANT, NAMELY, M/S ALLIE D CERAMICS CORPORATION. THE REVENUE, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON T HE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE BOTTOM OF THE LETTER OF M/S ALLIED CER AMICS CORPORATION AS 25, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI-6, CLAIMS TH AT SHOP NO.14 WAS NOT DISCLOSED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS THAT GEM S COURT IS SITUATED AT DOOR NO.14 AND FORM 16A ISSUED BY M/S A LLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION REFERS TO KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENN AI-6, THERE CANNOT BE ANY CONFUSION AT ALL. THE CONFIRMATION L ETTER GIVEN BY M/S 14 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 ALLIED CERAMICS CORPORATION CONFIRMS FURTHER THAT W HAT WAS LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY SHOP NO.8 AND 9 AT DOOR NO. 14, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI-6. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED INCOME FROM SHOP NO.14. SHOP NO.14 DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHAT IS BELONGI NG TO THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY SHOP NO.8 AND 9. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF ` 1,32,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION OF ` 1,32,000/- IS DELETED. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDI TION OF ` 50,789/- BEING THE EXPENSES RELATING TO PRE-CONSTRU CTION PERIOD. 16. SHRI G. SEETHARAMAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTER EST OF ` 2,53,944/- RELATING TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED 1/5 TH OF INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 50,789/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR PAYMENT OF IN TEREST. REFERRING TO THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR EARLIER FOUR ASSE SSMENT YEARS, THE 15 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THIS BEING THE FIFTH YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE DIFFERENT STAND. WHEN THE ASSE SSEE PAID INTEREST ON THE BORROWED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SAY THAT FOR THE 5 TH YEAR THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ADDITION OF ` 50,789/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 17. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, LD. S R. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRME D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, FOR THE EARLIER FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE INTEREST RELATING TO PRE- CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITT ED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD NO REASON TO DEPART FROM EARLIER YEARS FINDING. SINC E THE BORROWAL OF 16 I.T.A. NO.1287/MDS/08 LOAN FOR EARLIER FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBT ING THE BORROWAL OF LOAN. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 50,789/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION OF ` 50,789/- IS DELETED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-I, CHENNAI 4. 0 81 /CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.