Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 794 - AT - Income TaxAddition under the head income from house property - assessee contended that shops were the commercial asset of the appellant, and since no rent was received, there was no question of determining the notional income and taxing the same under aforesaid head - Held that - For determination of ALV u/s 23(1), AO has first to find out the reasonable expected rent which the property might fetch by letting out from year to year and then this reasonable expected rent has to be compared with the annual rent received or receivable. In the case in hand, when the property was never let out, than the AO has to consider all the relevant factors including the standard rent, if any as determined under the provisions of Rent Control Act or Municipal Rateable Value of the property for computing the Annual Letting Value. Since no such exercise was carried out, matter restored back Long term capital loss - computation at reduced figure in comparison to computation of assessee - AO denied the claim of expenditure incurred by the assessee on the improvement of the property - Held that - Since it is not clear from the records that whether the assessee has capitalised the cost of improvement and shown in the balance sheet for the respective assessment years; therefore, in the interest of Justice, we remit this issue to the record of the AO for deciding the same afresh after considering the aspect of capitalisation of the expenditure incurred on the improvement, stamp duty and interest etc
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Addition under the head 'income from house property.' 3. Computation of long term capital loss. Condonation of Delay: The appeal involved a delay of 496 days in filing, with the assessee providing reasons for the delay due to a bonafide mistake. The AR of the assessee argued that the delay was not deliberate but due to the misplacement of the order in the office of the Chartered Accountant. The DR objected to the condonation, claiming gross negligence on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the delay was not mala fide and decided to condone it, emphasizing that a lenient view should be taken on matters of condonation of delay. The decision was based on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Addition under 'Income from House Property': The issue revolved around the addition of Rs. 32,200 under 'income from house property.' The assessee owned two shops at commercial centers and a flat. The Assessing Officer estimated the ALV of the shops at Rs. 16,000 each, resulting in the addition. The AR argued that the shops were never let out, and the ALV computation was against settled law. The DR supported the AO's computation based on Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO, directing a proper consideration of relevant factors, including standard rent or Municipal Rateable Value, to determine the fair rent. Computation of Long Term Capital Loss: Regarding the computation of long term capital loss, the assessee claimed Rs. 16,66,173, which the AO denied. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The AR highlighted a similar issue resolved in a previous assessment year where the claim was allowed. The DR argued that the current year's facts were not presented as in the previous year. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to review the capitalization of expenditure on improvement and other aspects, considering the decision from the previous assessment year. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, addressing the issues of delay condonation, addition under 'income from house property,' and computation of long term capital loss. The decision emphasized the need for a fair and just approach in tax matters, balancing technicalities with substantial justice.
|