SMT. RATRANI SHARMA, Jaipur V. DCIT, Alwar

ITA 24/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99391 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH AGARWAL

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 25/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA 1994, KHEJANEWALO KA RASTA, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ALXPS 2005 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 24/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SMT. RATRANI SHARMA 1862, KHEJANEWALO KA RASTA, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGWPS 2551 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, ADDL. CIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4/11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEES AGA INST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) DATED 12.11.2014. SINCE THE ISSUE INVO LVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS IS COMMON IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1, THEREFORE, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 25/JP/2015. 2 ITA NO. 25 & 24/JP/2015 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & SMT. RATRANI SHARMA. 2. AT THE OUTSET, GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE SUSTA INING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CO NSIDERING THE SAME, I NOTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 901 TO 907/JP/2011 AND 897 TO 900/JP/2011 IN THE CASE OF F ATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA AND SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. RATRANI SHARMA IN WHICH THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 7.3.2012 HELD AS UNDER :- 5. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASE OF SHRI RADHE Y SHYAM SHARMA IN ITA NO. 901 TO 907/JP/2011, I HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MA DE AND CONFIRMED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. FOLLOWING FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY ME IN CASE OF SHRI SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA IN PARA 9.1 :- 9.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AN D THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT (A) ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD. D/R, I FIN D THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED. I NOTED THAT AO ESTIMATED TOTAL RENTAL INC OME OF RS.62,730/-, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- S.NO. PROPERTY DETAILS RENT RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME COMPUTED BY AO REASONS FOR NON-SHOWING OF RENTAL INCOME BY ASSESSEE 1. PART OF HOUSE NO. 1870-72, KHAJANEWALOKARASTA, JAIPUR - 6,000.00 USED FOR GODOWN PURPOSES 2. PART OF HOUSE NO. 1862, KHAJANEWALOKARASTA, JAIPUR - 3,960.00 USED FOR GODOWN PURPOSE 3. PART OF HOUSE NO. 1995, KHEJROKARASTA, JAIPUR - 7,170.00 USED FOR GODOWN PURPOSES 4. PART OF HOUSE NO. 1994, KHAJANEWALOKARASTA, JAIPUR - 21,600.00 USED FOR OWN BUSINESS PREMISES 3 ITA NO. 25 & 24/JP/2015 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & SMT. RATRANI SHARMA. 5. PLOT NO. 117/366, MANSAROVAR COLONY, JAIPUR. - 24,000.00 OPEN LAND TOTAL - 62,730.00 SIMILARLY, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME O F THESE PROPERTIES IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO. ALL THESE PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY ASSES SEE AND OTHER COPARCENERS. OTHER COPARCENERS ARE SHOWING THE RENTAL INCOME AGAINST T HE ROOMS OWNED BY THEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS USING THE ROOM FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS AND HAS STORED HIS STOCKS OF MOORTIES IN THESE ROOMS. IT IS SEEN T HAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ROOM IN EACH PROPERTY HAVING NO BATH ROOM, TOILET ETC., THEREFOR E IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE PROPERTIES CAN BE RENTED OUT FOR ANY LIVING PURPOSE . ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE SEARCH, AS ST ATED BY LD. A/R IN RESPECT TO GOODS STORED IN THESE PROPERTIES, HOWEVER, IT WAS STATED THAT INCASE OF OTHER COPARCENERS, THE INVENTORY WAS PREPARED BY SEARCH PARTY. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA BELONGS TO SHARMA GROUP AND IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SHYAM MOORTI KALA DEALING IN STATUES MADE OF STONES ETC. AND ALL THE STATUES ARE STORED IN THE SMALL ROOMS OF THE VARIOUS PROPERTIES SHOWN ABOVE I N THE CHART. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SH OULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS THESE PROPERTIES WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN THE S HAPE OF GODOWN. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOUND TO DISAPPROVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES, THE NOT IONAL RENT ADDED BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND, THEREFORE, LD. CIT (A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION MADE FOR EACH YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENT. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR ALL THE YEARS. FACTS ARE SIMILAR. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF REASO NING GIVEN IN CASE OF SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA (SUPRA), I DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N HERE ALSO FOR ALL THE YEARS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION THE T RIBUNAL, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS GROUND NO. 1 STANDS ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,983/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES. 5. SINCE THE PERSONAL USE OF THE MOBILE AND TELEPHO NE WERE NOT DENIED BY THE LD. A/R, AND I NOTED THAT THE AO DISALLOWED ONLY 10% OF THE EXPENSES, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS VERY REASONABLE IN REST RICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10%. ACCORDINGLY, I SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUN D STANDS DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO. 25 & 24/JP/2015 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & SMT. RATRANI SHARMA. 6. THE THIRD GROUND RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,276/- ON ACCOUNT OF GHADAI AND SUNDRY EXPENSES. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATE D 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF THE GHADAI CHARGES AND SUNDRY EXPENSES AND DISALLOWED T HE SAME. WHILE DISALLOWING THESE EXPENSES, NO COGENT MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. GEN UINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND STANDS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 24/JP/2015 : 8. IN THIS APPEAL THE ONLY GROUND RELATES TO THE SU STENANCE OF ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME AMOUNT ING TO RS. 31,164/-. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ARISEN AND WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE NOTIONAL INCOME IN ITA NO. 25/JP/2015 WHILE DISPOSING OFF GROUND NO. 1 IN THE CASE OF SHR I SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. I, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING MY AFORESAID FINDING IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY ( P.K. BANSAL ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 4/11/ 2015 DAS/ 5 ITA NO. 25 & 24/JP/2015 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & SMT. RATRANI SHARMA. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & SMT. RA TRANI SHARMA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 25 & 24/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR