Shalini Chawla, New Delhi V. ACIT CC-05, New Delhi

ITA 8004/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7879 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.8004/DEL./2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18 SMT. SHALINI CHAWLA, C/O-RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES CA L-7A (LGF), SOUTH EXTN. PART II, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, NEW DELHI PAN :AAAPA4425D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORD ER DATED 16/09/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-24, N EW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LEARNED CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN ACCEPTING THE JEWELL ERY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS. AS EXPLAINED ONE OUT OF JEWELLER Y FOUND OF 947.074 GMS. FROM PNB LOCKER NO.487, THUS IN NOT AC CEPTING THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF BALANCE WEIGHT OF 447.07 4 GMS. VALUED AT RS.12,53,121/- AND CONSEQUENTLY ERRED IN SUSTAIN ING ADDITION OF RS.12,53,121/- U/S.69A R/W SEC.115BBE OF THE I.T . ACT. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, CA SHRI SUMIT GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI H.K. CHAUDHARY, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 20.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.08.2020 2 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 1.1 THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH BEING 9 47.074 GMS. BEING LESS THAN THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING EARLIER SEARCH ON ASSESSEE ON 28.02.07 WHEN JEWELLERY OF 969.300 GMS. WAS FOUND A ND AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT NONE OF THE OLD JEWELLERY STANDS DISPOSED OFF TILL THE DATE OF PRESENT SEARCH, THEREFORE IN V IEW OF EXPLANATIONS GIVEN, THE COMPLETE JEWELLERY OF 947.074 GMS. SHOUL D BE HELD AS FULLY EXPLAINED. 1.2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PRESENT SEARCH, THE LOCKER NO.487PNB FROM WHERE THE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND WAS LASTLY OPERATED ON 29.10.15 (A.Y. 16- 17), HENCE UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, THE ISSUE OF THIS JEWELLERY CAN BE CONSIDERED IN A.Y.17-18. 1.3 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, LD. CIT(A), UNDER THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERITS IN NOT AC CEPTING THE ALLEGED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, FILED BEFORE HIM ON T HE JEWELLERY ISSUE. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, DEDUCTIO N OF RS.34,070/- SHOULD HAD BEEN ALLOWED U/S.24 OUT OF INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF LET OUT FLAT NO.5K-096, RIDG E WOOD ESTATE DLF-GURGAOM 2. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) ON 12/04/2016. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS , CERTAIN JEWELRY WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND OUT OF WHICH PART OF THE JEWELRY WAS SEIZED BY THE INCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/01/2018, DECLARING INCOME OF 8,62,030/-. THE INCOME DECLARED INCLUDE RENTAL INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND COMPLIED WITH. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT BUILDING MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF 34,070/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAIN OF 3 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, WHICH BEING NOT ALLOW ED UNDER LAW, HE THUS MADE ADDITION FOR THE SAME. FURTHER, HE MAD E ADDITION OF 17,49,941/-FOR UNEXPLAINED JEWELRY IN TERMS OF SECT ION 69A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. AGGRIE VED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO PA RTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 2.1 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APP EARED THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AND FILED A PAPER-BOOK ELEC TRONICALLY CONTAINING PAGES 1-75. THE LD. DR ALSO APPEARED THR OUGH THE FACILITY OF THE VIRTUAL HEARING AND SUBMITTED HIS A RGUMENTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER-BOO K FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 THE GROUND NO. 1.1 TO AND 1.4 OF THE APPEAL RELA TES TO THE ADDITION OF JEWELLERY OF 12,53,121/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF TH E SEARCH WAS VALUED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER IN HIS REPORT DAT ED 25/04/2017 AT 37,54,085/-. THE JEWELRY FOUND WAS BIFURCATED IN THE NAME OF THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AS UNDER: BELONGING TO ITEM S. NOS. VALUE VIJAY CHAWLA (HUSBAND) 1-5 3,60,766/- MRS. KUMUD CHAWLA (MOTHER IN LAW) 6-10 5,84,591/- SHALINI CHAWLA (ASSESSEE) 11-30 28,08,728/- TOTAL 37,54,085/ - 4.2 THE NET WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE A SSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AS 947.074 GMS. OUT OF THE JEWELRY BELON GING TO THE 4 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 ASSESSEE OF 28,08,728/- WEIGHING 947.074 GMS, THE JEWELLERY FO R 17,49,941/- WAS SEIZED. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED IN EARLIER SEARCH PRO CEEDING DURING THE YEAR 2007 ALSO AND A LIST OF THE JEWELLERY WEIG HT 969.300 GMS. FOUND WAS ALSO MADE AT THAT TIME. THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT NET WEIGHT OF THE JEWELRY FOUND IN PRESENT SEARCH I S LOWER THAN THE JEWELRY FOUND DURING THE YEAR 2007. BUT, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE PRESENT SEARCH WITH THE LIST OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE SEARCH DURING 2007 AND THEREFORE HE HE LD THE JEWELLERY OF 17,49,941/-, WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING SEARCH, AS UNEXPLAINED JEWELRY U/S 69A OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION THAT WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN PRESENT SEARCH BEING LESS THAN THE WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE SEARCH FOR THE YEAR 2007 & THEREFORE, THE JEWELRY FOUND IN THE CURRENT SEARCH STANDS EXPL AINED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED LOCKER OPENING RECORD, WHICH WE RE OBTAINED FROM THE BANK, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LOCKER WAS LA STLY OPERATED ON 29/10/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) AND THEREFO RE JEWELLERY EXISTED IN THE LOCKER AS ON 29/10/2015. T HE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE LOCKER OPENING RECORD, THE JEWELRY CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE NEEDED TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDING TO LEARNED CIT(A), THE LOCKER OPENING RECORD WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME, THEREFORE IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE A REQUEST FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN 5 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES,1962. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE OBSER VATIONS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 196 1 DATED 11/05/1994, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED CREDIT OF TO TAL JEWELLERY OF 500 GMS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS EXPLAINED A ND BALANCE JEWELLERY (447.074 GMS) WORTH RS.12,53,121/- WAS UP HELD AS UNEXPLAINED. 4.3 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTION CHALLENGING THE ADDITION. 4.4 THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS THA T THE COMPLETE JEWELRY STAND EXPLAINED AS IT WAS AVAILABL E AT THE TIME OF THE EARLIER SEARCH DATED 18/02/2007. HE SUBMITTED T HAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 18/02/ 2007 TO TILL DATE NO JEWELLE RY HAS BEEN SOLD. HE SUBMITTED THAT MAIN REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTI NG THE SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEA RCH IS NOT MATCHING OF THE MANY ITEMS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WITH THE ITEMS AS PER VALUATION REPORT OF SEARCH DATED 18/02 /2007. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT CHANGE IN THE SPECI FICATION OF PART ITEM WAS DUE TO REMAKING, REMODELING, CHANGE O F DESIGN, EXCHANGE OF OLD ITEMS FOR NEW ITEMS DURING THE PERI OD OF NINE YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A MATTER OF THE COMM ON KNOWLEDGE THAT INDIAN LADIES EVEN WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF TH EIR HUSBAND, GETS THEIR JEWELRY ITEMS CHANGED/REMODELLED ETC. FO R KEEPING PACE WITH THE CURRENT DESIGN. ACCORDING TO HIM, WHEN NO ITEMS AVAILABLE IN 2007 HAVE BEEN SOLD TILL THE DATE OF T HE PRESENT SEARCH, THE WEIGHT FOUND IN THE SEARCH FOR THE YEAR 2007 SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL 6 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHAN KUMAR MODI VERSUS ACIT 180 DTR (DELHI) TRIB. 274. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SM C BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS NAWAZ SINGHANIA REPORTE D IN (2017) 88 TAXMANN.COM 327 ( MUMBAI -TRIB) AND DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR B AG RAWAL VS DCIT 176 DTR (PUNE) TRIB 273. 4.5 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE D ISTINGUISHED THE DECISIONS ON THE GROUND THAT IN ABOVE CASES JEW ELRY WAS FOUND DECLARED IN WEALTH TAX RETURNS/VDIS DECLARATIO N, WHICH ARE DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED UNDER STATUTORY REGULATIONS. 4.6 THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSE L OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE SPAN OF THE LO NG MARRIED LIFE OF 25 YEARS, THE JEWELRY FOUND OF 947.074 GMS SHOUL D NOT BE DOUBTED AS ASSESSEE BELONG TO AN AFFLUENT FAMILY AN D LADIES GETS JEWELLERY AS A GIFT AND GET THE SAME OUT OF THE LIQ UID FUNDS RECEIVED BY THEM FROM VARIOUS RELATIVES FRIENDS AND WELL-WISHERS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THE L EARNED COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA VS ITO (2012) 69 DTR (DEL) 82. WITH REGARD TO THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT CREDIT OF 500 GMS HAS ALREADY BEE N ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) T O COVER THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE GIFTS FROM REL ATIVES FRIENDS ETC. 7 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 4.7 THE THIRD CONTENTION WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE L EARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION IS THAT THE BANK LOCKER WAS LAST OPERATED ON 29/10/2015 (WHICH FALLS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) AND THEREFORE UNDER NO CIR CUMSTANCES THE SAID JEWELRY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND ASSESSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LOCKER OPERATI ON HISTORY BEFORE US, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 19 AND 20 OF THE PAPER- BOOK. 4.8 THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED TH E ISSUE THAT SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT BY WAY OF THE AMEND MENT DATED 15/12/2016 IN THE SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, THE RA TE OF THE TAX ON THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 60%. THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE EFFE CTIVE FROM 01/04/2017. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 12/04/2016 WHI CH IS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, MAKING THE TAX RATE OF THE 60% APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMENDMENT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE RETRO SPECTIVELY TO COVER THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED PRIOR TO 15/12/2016 I.E. THE DATE ON WHICH THE AMENDMENT GOT PERMISSION OF HONBLE PR ESIDENT OF INDIA. 4.9 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE AMENDMENT IN APPROPRIATE FORUM. 4.10 AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES AT LENGTH THROU GH VIDEO CONFERENCING AND ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIAL DEC ISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF 8 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 KRISHAN KUMAR MODI (SUPRA) IN PARA 8.11 OF THE ORDE R HAS NOTED THAT THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETUR NS OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS HIGHER IN WEIGHT AS COMPARED TO THE JEWELRY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARC H. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASON FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAI NED JEWELLERY BY THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN THAT CASE. IN THE CASE OF M RS NAWAZ SINGHANIA (SUPRA) ALSO THE GROSS WEIGHT OF THE JEWE LLERY DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR WEALTH TAX RETURNS WAS IN EXCESS OF THE GROSS WEIGHT OF THE JEWELRY FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SE ARCH AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO ADDITION WAS PERMISSIBLE MERE LY BECAUSE THERE WAS FREQUENT REMAKING OF THE OLD JEWELLERY IN TO NEW DESIGNS. IN THE CASE OF RAJKUMAR B AGRAWAL (SUPRA) ALSO THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT SO LONG AS THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE G OLD JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH MATCHES WITH THE EA RLIER DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN WEALTH TAX RET URNS AND VDIS DECLARATION THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE SIMPLY ON T HE GROUND THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS IN THE LIST DECLARED UNDER WEALTH TAX RETURNS/VDIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ACTUALLY FOUND. 4.11 IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, TO SUPPORT THE AVAI LABILITY OF THE JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH IN CALENDAR YEAR 2007, WHICH IS A DOCUMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT HAVING EVIDENTIAL VALUE AKIN TO A COPY WEALTH TAX RETURN OR VDIS DECL ARATION. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR THA T SLIGHT MISMATCH IN THE NAME OF THE JEWELRY ARTICLES, SHOUL D NOT BE ALLOWED JUST BECAUSE THE JEWELLERY WEIGHT FOUND DUR ING SEARCH OF 2007 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY WEALTH TAX RETURNS. IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE THRESHOLD 9 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 AMOUNT OF WEALTH LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. SO IF THE WEALT H TAX RETURN IS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN IN OUR OPINION THE INVENTORY OF THE JEWELRY FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE S EARCH IN CALENDAR YEAR 2007 AND VALUATION REPORT OF THE SAME PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER, IS ONE OF THE DOCUMENT PREP ARED UNDER STATUTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS AND CANNOT BE BRUSH ED ASIDE. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE JEWELRY FOU ND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH IN CALENDAR YEAR 20 07 IS MORE THAN THE JEWELRY FOUND DURING THE CURRENT SEARCH, A ND THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJKUMAR B AGARWAL (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITIO N OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT IS WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE JUST DUE TO MINOR MISMA TCH IN THE ITEMS OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE CURRENT SEARCH AND THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ON 18/02/2007 4.12 SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION OF THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELRY, WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING UPON O THER CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE, AS SAME ARE RENDERED ONLY ACADEMIC. THE GROUND NO. 1 A ND 1.1 OF THE APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. IN GROUND NO.2 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CONFI RMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF 34,070/-, WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS DEDUCTION FOR MAINTEN ANCE CHARGES PAID IN RESPECT OF FLAT LET OUT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DISALLOWED CLAIM OF SAID MAINTENANCE CHARGES PAID TO THE SOCIE TY AS SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT IN GAINS OF THE BUSINESS BEING RELATED TO THE PROPERTY, INCOME OF WHICH WAS LIABLE UNDER 10 ITA NO. 8004/DEL./2019 THE HEAD INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY. BEFORE U S THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 26 AND 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME OF R S.8,62,030/-. IN THIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, UNDER THE HEAD PROF IT AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS A DDED BACK FLAT MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF 34,070/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADDED BACK THE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES UNDER T HE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION A ND THIS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED UNDER THAT INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED FLAT MAINTENANCE EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND THUS NO ADDITION CAN BE MAD E ON THIS GROUND. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF CONFIR MING THE DISALLOWANCE IS AGAINST THE FACTUAL RECORD AND THER EFORE IT IS SET ASIDE. THE ADDITION OF 34,070/- UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH AUGUST, 2020. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH AUGUST, 2020. RK/- (D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI