Tajit Kumar Saha, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-55(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2272/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 227223514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP KUMAR SAHA F

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 2 272 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2 272 / KOL / 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 20 0 7 TAJIT KUMAR SAHA,....................................... ..... ........... .. .APP ELL ANT CA/6, DESHBANDHU NAGAR, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA - 700 059 [ PAN : A KTPS 7743 P ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER , ........................... ................... ... . RESPONDENT WARD - 55 ( 3 ), KOLKATA , 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 01 6 APPEARANCES BY: SH RI DILIP KUMAR SAHA, F.C.A. , FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI RAJESH KUMAR , J CIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 2 6 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 2 6 , 201 5 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - X XXV I , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 343 / CIT(A) - XXXVI/KOL/ITO,WD - 55(3)/KOL./2011 - 12 D ATED 30 . 0 9 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . 2 . SHRI DILIP KUMAR SAHA, F.C.A., REPRESENT ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , JCIT, SR. D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A .R. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER OF THREE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS SITUATED IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST ON I.T.A. NO . 2 272 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 2 OF 3 CAPITAL AND SALARY FROM THE THREE DIFFERENT FIRMS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER OF MEDICINE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ON RENT A COMMERCIAL SPACE B EING OFFICE ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF A THREE - STORIED BUILDING SITUATED AT RAGHUNATHPUR, POST OFFICE - JYANGRA, POLICE STATION - RAJARHAT, NORTH 24 - PARGANAS MEASURING ABOUT 300 SQ.FT. FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES. LD. A.R. PLACED BEFORE ME THE COPY OF THE LEAVE AND LICENCE A GREEMENT FOR TWENTY - FOUR MONTHS DATED 01.01.2005. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT ON VERIFICATION THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE FOUND AS ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT FOR EARNING INCOME FROM PARTNER S SALARY AND INTEREST ON CAPITAL, NO EXPENSES WAS REQUIRED , H E DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS RENT OF THE SAID COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBM ISSION THAT AT THE OUTSET, THE VERIFICATION HAD BEEN DONE AT THE STAGE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH WAS IN 2012, WHEREAS THE PREMISES HAD BEEN TAKEN ON LEASE IN JANUARY, 2005 FOR TWENTY - FOUR MONTHS. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A PARTNER IN THREE FIRMS AND DEALING IN MEDICINE, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE PREMISES FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES WHICH HAS GENERATED HIM NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS A/C. OF RS.4,03,638/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE DELETED. 4. IN REPLY, LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE L EASE D EED SHOWS THAT THE LEAS E WAS ENTERED INTO ON 01.01.2005 FOR TWENTY - FOUR MONTHS. THE PREMISES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMERCIAL PREMISES AND THE AGREEMENT ALSO SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE SPACE IS MEASURING ABOUT 300 SQ.FT. I T IS AN O FFICE ROOM AND THE ASSESSEE WAS TO GRANT ED PE RMISSION FOR US ING THE PREMISES ONLY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO . 2 272 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 3 OF 3 THIS AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN MEDICINE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF MORE THAN RS.4 LAKHS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXPENSES REPRESENTING THE RENT OF THE COMMERCIAL PREMISES TAKEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF RENT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 TH FEBRUARY , 201 5 . SD/ - GEORGE MATHAN ( JUD ICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 2 6 TH D AY OF FEBRUARY , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) TAJIT KUMAR SAHA, CA/6, DESHBANDHU NAGAR, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA - 700 059 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 55(3), KOLKATA, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 016 (3) COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .