Ruchi Khattar, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officers ,Ward-6(3), Hyderabad

ITA 429/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6941 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ SMC ’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.429/Hyd/2021 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ms. Ruchi Khattar, Hyderabad. PAN AFCPK 8534J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Shashank Dundu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya, (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 10.03.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2022. O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2017-18 arise from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dt.24.08.2021 passed in the case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1035053123(1) involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA 429/Hyd/2021 2. I straightaway come to the assessee's twin substantive grounds regarding determination of assessee's annual rental value involving its income from house property as well as disallowance of expenditure pertaining to municipal tax litigation against her income from “other sources” involving very same; respectively. Both the learned representatives referred at the outset to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion on the foregoing twin issues as under : 3 ITA 429/Hyd/2021 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. There is hardly any dispute that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered the assessee's rental income which is evident in its form 26AS in light of the corresponding rent agreement with its tenant as well as the municipal tax payment said to be allowable as a deduction under the very head. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant former issue back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. 4. Later issue of disallowance of municipal tax litigation expenses also follows the suit since both the learned lower authorities’ appear to have ignored the clinching fact that the assessee had declared its maintenance income under the residuary head of income from “other” sources than income from house property which would lead to 30% standard deduction allowable u/s.24(a) of the Act in later case. It is made clear that the assessee’s stand all along has been that the expenditure claim had been incurred wholly and exclusively incurred for deriving its income form other sources only. I therefore direct the Assessing Officer to decide the instant latter issue as well afresh in preceding terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2021. Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) Judicial Member * Reddy gp 4 ITA 429/Hyd/2021 Copy to : 1. Ruchi Khattar, No.6-3-1097/1098, B4 FG, 406 & 407, Garden Manor Apartment, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. ITO, Ward 6(3), Hyderabad. 3. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.