Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 100 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - filing of non est return - HELD THAT:- Return filed by the assessee on 22/10/2010 was non-est return and not a valid return in the eyes of law as per Section 139(4) of the Act. In this situation, Clause (a) of Explanation 2 would squarely apply which provide that income would be deemed to have escaped assessment in case no return was furnished by the assessee although his income exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. Taking cognizance of the return filed by the assessee on 22/10/2010, we find that the income was disclosed by the assessee as capital gains as against the observation of AO that the income was to be assessed as undisclosed income which would attract higher rate of tax. Therefore, this situation would also lead us to same conclusion that there was escapement of income in terms of statutory provisions of Section 147. No arguments have been advanced in respect of ground no. 1(ii). Therefore, finding no substance in the legal pleadings, we hold that reassessment proceedings were validly initiated against the assessee and the order of Ld. first appellate authority, in this regard, would not require any interference. In result, Ground No. 1 stands dismissed. Addition of notional rental income from two flats situated at Mumbai - adoption of deemed rent as per Municipal Rateable value - HELD THAT:- The issue is recurring in nature. The same has already been delved into by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2018 (5) TMI 1817 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein relying upon the decision in CIT V/s Tip Top Typography [2014 (8) TMI 356 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] directed Ld. AO to adopt the deemed rent as per Municipal Rateable value and assess the income accordingly. Ground No.2 stands partly allowed. Capital Gains - sale of painting - AO alleged that PAN of M/s Art Musings was not valid - HELD THAT:- It appears that the PAN has inadvertently been mentioned in the confirmation of account as AAAFA5038D which has led Ld. AO to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. There was no other reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. Nothing adverse is available on record. Therefore, since the evidence on record in the shape of confirmation of account, assessee’s bank statement, details of PAN etc. has been placed on record and the same corroborates each other, there could no occasion now to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, we hold that sale of painting to the extent of ₹ 38 Lacs has rightly been offered under the head Capital Gains. The ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed to that extent. So far as the balance addition AR has pleaded for restoration of matter back to the file of Ld. AO to place on record sufficient documentary evidences in support of the claim, as done by the Tribunal in earlier years. Concurring with the same, the matter stands remitted back to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to substantiate his claim, in this regard.
|