Manoj Ashok Kathpal, Nashik V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1837/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0414 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMITRA BANERJI
• Assessee Lawyers: LALIT S. SANGLE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Validity of assessment; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 143(1); 250; 201; 13; 22

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 1837 /PN/201 6 / ASSESS MENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL, SNEH BUNGLOW, 26, DSOUZA COLONY, COLLEGE ROAD, NASHIK 422 005 . / APPELLANT PAN: A BPPK2180B VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI LALIT S. SANGLE / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMITRA BANERJI / DATE OF HEARING : 18 . 1 0 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 . 1 1 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUS HMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 1 , NASHIK , DATED 2 0 . 0 6 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 09 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 2 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW THE L'D CIT (A) - I, NASHIK, ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.14 7 WAS NEVER A SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSES HAD CLAIMED, VIDE LAST PARA OF LETTER DATED 21 ST APRIL 2016 RELIEF TO DROP NOTICE U/S. 148 AS BAD IN LAW AND CANCEL ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 IN VIEW OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 FILED WITH APPEAL MEMO IN FORM NO.35, CRAVING LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER OR AME N D ANY GROUND / GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEAVING, DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION( 5) OF SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE L'D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 1 NASHIK, E RRED IN NOT DROPPING NOTICE U/S. 148 AS BAD IN LAW AND IN NOT CANCELLING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147, AS THE REASON RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSI NG THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) WHEREIN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 25 TH JUNE, 2010 AS REQUIRED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE ACCEPTED BY HIM AND REASONS RECORDED WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 ARE ONLY CHANGE OF OPINION AS AGAINST THE OPINION FOR MED WHILE PASS ING THE ORIGINAL ORDER U/S.143(3) . 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.46,89,780/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2010 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION OUT OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ALTERATION EXPENSES OF RS.53,689/ - AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.90,000/ - , HENCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS FOUND EXCESS BY RS.1,00,581/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 3 NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETUR N OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECT IONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE SAID OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER VIDE OFFICE LETTER DATED 09.02.2015. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE COMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ALTERNATION EXPENSES OF RS.53,689/ - WHICH WERE CLAIMED IN THE ORI GINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, HE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE PAID OF RS.90,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,582/ - VIDE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADDITIONS MADE WHICH WERE HELD TO BE CORRECT BY THE CIT(A). IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RAISED AND HENCE THAT CLAI M OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT NO SUCH ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND/S AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED SINCE THE NOTI CE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 4 THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ISSUE WAS LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WH EREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2010 , COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF PAPER BOOK HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED OUT OF RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 22.06.2010 HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE PURPOSE OF EXPENSES ALONG WITH SOURCE FROM WHICH T HE SAID EXPENSES WERE MET WITH. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE REPLY FILED WHICH IS DATED 25.06.2010 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 4 TO 13 OF PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS WHICH WERE FILED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE GARB OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE MATTER IS BEING RE - LOOKED INTO. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN LETTER DATED 27.10.2014 , COPY OF WHICH IS PLA CED AT PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, REASONS FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WERE UNDERGONE CHANGE AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINT ED OUT THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE STAND TAKEN DURING RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 5 FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MODIFIED ITS CLAIM OF NOT CLAIMING ALTERNATION EXPENSES OF RS. 53,689/ - AND HENCE, NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER REFERRED TO THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT WITHDRAWN ITS CLAIM. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT BASED ON TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND HENCE, RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS WERE NOT VALIDLY INITIATED. 9. ON PE RUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN WHICH, AG AINST THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY, IT HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN WHICH, AG AINST THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY, IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ALTERATION EXPENSES OF RS.53,689/ - AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.90,000/ - . THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE AC T AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE RETURN ED INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD NOTED THAT THERE WAS EXCESS DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALTERATION EXPENSES AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES . IN VIEW T HEREOF, REASONS WERE RECORDED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE SAME INCOME IS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN O F INCOME. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON HIS REQUEST, AGAINST WHICH THE OBJECTIONS WERE FILED AND THE SAME WERE REJECTED BY ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AND DISALLOWED TWO EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST INCOME FROM PROPERTY AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,582/ - . THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS. IN RESPECT OF CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT, THE CIT(A) DISMISSE D THE SAME AS NO SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RAISED. 10. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS YES, IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL, IT HAD NOT RAISED SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL BUT IT HAD RAISED GROUND OF APPEAL WITH A LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHEREIN HE HAD CHALLENGED THE RE - ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED. THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT IT HAD LIBERTY TO RAISE THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE BE FORE THE CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH IS BEING ADJUDICATED I S THE ACTION TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS STRESSED THAT IN THE GARB OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RE - LOOKING INTO THE MATTER AND SINCE THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AN D TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED. 1 1 . SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN HE MAY ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. THE ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 7 PROCEDURE IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL SERVE UPON THE ASSESSEE NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FOR SUCH AND AFTER TAKING ANY SUCH STEP AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS IN WRITING. THE JURISDICTION COMES TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON SUCH RECORDING OF REASONS. 1 2 . IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF RECORD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ALTERATION EXPENSES OF RS.53,689/ - AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.90,000/ - AND IN VIEW THEREOF, REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HAD NOT APPLIED CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHILE ASSESSING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM PROPERTY AFTER CONSIDERING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE ACT. SECTION 23 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE MANNER IN WHICH ANNUAL VALUE HAS TO BE COMPUTED AND THE PROVISO THEREUNDER LAYS DOWN THAT THE TAXES LEVIED BY ANY LOCAL AUT HORITY ARE TO BE DEDUCTED IN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ARE PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN AS PER CLAUSE (A), SUM EQUAL TO 30% OF ANNUAL VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS WHETH ER INCURRED OR NOT IS TO BE ALLOWED. FURTHER, IN CASE THE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED , ETC. WITH BORROWED CAPITAL, THEN THE AMOUNT OF ANY INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH LOANS IS TO BE ALLOWED. THERE IS NO OTHER DEDUCTION PROVIDED AS PER SCHEME OF THE ACT UNDER CHAPTER - C WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 8 PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF PAPER BOOK AND THE PERUSAL OF SAME REFLECTS THAT AGAINST THE RENT RECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOU NT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES OF RS. 1,16,163/ - WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. HE HAD FURTHER CLAIMED ALTERATION EXPENSES OF RS. 53,689/ - , BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.90,000/ - AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF REPA IRS AT RS. 5,63,468/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ACCEPTED PERSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF ALTERATION EXPENSES AND BROKERAGE IS NOT COV ERED UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND WHERE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED INCORRECT CLAIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE MADE TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF ITS INCOME. THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 147 OF THE ACT AND SUCH EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A WRONG CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING RE - ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS WAS THE CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. ACCORDINGLY, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. AS FAR AS T HE CLAIM ON MERITS I S CONCERNED , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAID CLAIM OF ALTERATION EXPENSES OF RS.53,689/ - AND BROKERAGE OF RS.90,000/ - AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE TAKEN NOTE IS THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 1,00,582/ - ITA NO. 1837 /PN/20 1 6 SHRI MANOJ ASHOK KATHPAL 9 WHICH IS WORKED OUT AFTER ALLOWING STANDARD DEDUCTION @ 30% ON ANNUAL VALUE. THE EXPENSES OF RS. 53,689/ - AND RS.90,000/ - ARE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BUT AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION @ 30% ON THE ENHANCED ANNUAL VALUE AFTER MAKING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE, THE ADDITION WORKS OUT TO RS.1,00,582/ - WHICH IS UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 6 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH NOVEMBER , 201 6 . / PUNE ; DATED : 30 NOVEMBER , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , NASHIK ; 4. / THE PR. CIT - 1 , NASHIK ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PU NE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE