Shri Vinodkumar S.Pandya, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.Circle-14, Ahmedabad

ITA 2408/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67918 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KAREEL SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Deemed owner of house property
• Section: 69C; 54

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2408/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2009-2010] SHRI VINOD KUMAR S. PANDYA F-203, SAMUDHUR-II BEH. AZAD SOCIETY, AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD 380 015. PAN : ACIPP 5258 R /VS. ACIT, CIR.14 AHMEDABAD. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KAREEL, SR.DR 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2013 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/11/2013 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD , DATED 17.09.20 12. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING/ESTIMATING N OTIONAL RENT OF RS.7,20,000/- (RS.2,40,000 X 3 PROPERTIES) IN RESPECT OF DEEMED LET OUT PROPERTIES. ITA NO.2408/AHD/2012 -2- 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY TAKEN EXORBITANT RENT FIGURE WITH REGARD TO THE VACANT PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE ITA T, AHMEDABAD IN ITO VS. SMT. EALA SANDEEP SHAH, ITA NO.431/AHD/2010 ORDER DTD.23.11.2012 WHEREIN THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE FOR THE VACANT PROPERTIES WERE ADOPTED. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ITO VS. SMT. EALA S ANDEEP SHAH (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF ADOPTION OF REN TAL VALUE WITH REGARD TO THE VACANT PROPERTY AS THAT OF MUNICIPAL RATEBLE VALUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE ITA T, AHMEDABAD BENCH CITED SUPRA. WE BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD (SUPRA), D IRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF NOTIONAL RENT OF THE VACANT PRO PERTIES IN QUESTION, AS PER THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMED ABAD (SUPRA) AND MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE SHOULD BE ADOPTED. THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMEN T BY RS.40,000/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION U/S.69C 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.40,000/- WAS FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE W HICH REPRESENTS ITA NO.2408/AHD/2012 -3- THE ASSESSEES WITHDRAWAL FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNTS FR OM TIME TO TIME IN THE PAST. THE LEARNED DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40,000 /- REPRESENTS HIS SAVING OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS ON PREVIOUS DATES. THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS MADE SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWAL S IN THE PAST TO COVER THIS AMOUNT OF RS.40,000/-. IN THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT NO CASE OF ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- UNDER SECTION 69C IS MAD E OUT BY THE REVENUE, AND THE ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED, A ND THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AS U NDER: 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMEN T BY MAKING ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.12, 34,370/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT DEPOSITED B APPELLANT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME IN THE S PECIFIED SCHEME. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54(2) O F THE ACT, AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SPECIFIED ASSETS BEFO RE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL, 339 IT R 610, AND ALSO WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA, 259 CTR (P &H) 388 DATED 20.3.2013 WHEREIN HELD THAT DUE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN ACCORDING TO SECTION 139(1) WAS SUBJECT TO THE EXTENDED PERIO D PROVIDED UNDER ITA NO.2408/AHD/2012 -4- SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIO N 54 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THE ISSUE IS C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. NO CONTRARY DECISIONS COULD BE CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN VIEW O F THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND THE REVENUE COULD NOT CITE ANY CONTRA RY JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WE ARE BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, AND ACCORDIN GLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE, AND SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SPECIFIED ASSETS WITH IN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, AND THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD