Smt. Dr. Sneh Prabha Goel, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 266/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58538 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: R K JAIN

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 266/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 266/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 DR. (SMT.) SNEH PRABHA GOEL, 486/3, SHASHTRI NAGAR, MEERUT 250004 (PAN : AARPG4575B) VS. ITO, WARD - 2(3), BHAINSALI GROUND, DELHI ROAD, MEERUT (UP)- 250002 (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : S HRI R.K. JAIN, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : S. MOHANTY, D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MEERUT DAT ED 3.11.2009. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- (I) THAT THE ORDER AS PASSED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3,47,499/- IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. (II) THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW AS NOT JUST IFIED IN ASSESSING THE DEEMED RENT OF THE SHOP USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HER CHAMBER/OFFICE AND ASSESSING THE DEE MED RENT WITHOUT ANY BASIS OF COMMERCIAL SHOP. (III) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF CLARITY FROM BOTH ITA NO. 266/DEL/2010 2 THE ENDS, HENCE THE ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED, WHEN THE SAME WAS MADE CLEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, AND T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS FULLY SATIS FIED. (IV) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE ADDITION A S MADE IS VERY-VERY EXCESSIVE. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A SSESSEE WAS IN A POSSESSION OF A SHOP AT KRISHNA PLAZA, WHICH WAS PUR CHASED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND T HAT ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE SHOP AT ` 8000/- PER MONTH FROM THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THUS, ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE RENT FOR ` 6000/- PER MONTH. THUS, ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEEMED RENTAL INCOME FROM THE ABOVE SHOP @ ` 6000/- PER MONTH DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E SHOP HAS BEEN RENTED FROM THIS YEAR. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR THE SHOP WAS BEING USED FOR HER PERSONAL USE AS HER CLINIC/OFFICE. SO , THE RENTAL INCOME COULD NOT BE ASSESSED. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THIS JUSTIFIABLE. HE ESTIMATED THE RENTAL VALUE ` 6000/- PER MONTH AND GRANTED 30% DEDUCTION, HE ASSESSED THE RENTAL INCOME AT 50,400/ -. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BE FORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE DRAFTING OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUFFERED FROM LACK OF CLARITY. HOW EVER, HE PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. ITA NO. 266/DEL/2010 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT I N THIS CASE IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO WHAT EXACTLY WAS T HE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAID SHOP WAS USED. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS USED AS OFFICE/ CLINIC. ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MUNICIP AL VALUE OF THE CONCERNED SHOP. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED, IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/1/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 25/1/2012 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES