SRI ANIL KUMAR , DHANBAD V. ITO WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

ITA 66/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9511 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHA SINGHMARR J
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.66/RAN/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SRI ANIL KUMAR DHAIYA, ISM, DHANBAD-828111 VS. ITO-1(1), DHANBAD PAN/GIR NO. : AFRPK6855P ( APPELL ANT ) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI DEVESH PODDAR, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SMT. NISHA SINGHMARR, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 03.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.03.2020 O R D E R S. S. GODARA(ORAL): THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DHANBAD DATED 19.12.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.89/DHN/2010-11 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTIONS HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DECLINING HIS CLAIM TO HAVE DERIVED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BEING A PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S NATRAJ CONSORTIUM FOLLOWED BY DISALLOWANCE OF ALLOWABLE STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT. THE REVENUES CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION IS THAT THIS ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN ANY SUCH HOUSE PROPERTY SO AS TO DERIVE THE CORRESPONDING HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. LEARNED COUNSELS CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE ASSESSEES FIRM M/S NATRAJ CONSORTIUM OWNS HOUSE PROPERTY GIVEN ON RENT AND THE OTHER TWO PARTNERS THEREIN ALREADY STAND ASSESSED QUA THE CORRESPONDING SHARE(S) OF THE VERY INCOME. I THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT LARGER I.T.A NO.66/RAN/2018 SRI ANIL KUMAR DHAIYA 2 INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RE-EXAMINES THIS FORMER ISSUE ONCE AGAIN. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON OR BEFORE 31.06.20 FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THIS FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. COMING TO THE LATTER ISSUE OF ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE EXPENSES, I FIND THAT NEITHER ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO PROVING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR DERIVING CORRESPONDING INCOME NOR THE DEPARTMENT HAS JUSTIFIED SUCH A HIGHER RATE OF DISALLOWANCE WHICH MAY GIVE RISE TO ABNORMAL PROFIT RATE. I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF 50% TO @10% ONLY WITH A RIDER THAT THE SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT. INTEREST COMPUTATION, IF ANY, SHALL BE FINALISED AS PER LAW. THIS LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IS PARTLY ACCEPTED. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.03.2020. SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03.03.2020. RS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. P.S., ITAT, RANCHI (ON TOUR)