TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not justify any interference in the ultimate conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). Moreover, we find that the assessee had brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer all the facts by way of a written communication dated 25/11/2009, copy of which has also been placed in the paper book at pages 110 to 111. Therefore, it is not a case where any fresh facts are being pleaded. Considering the entirety of the circumstances and in the background that the facts were already before the Assessing Officer, which have remained un-rebutted and also the precedent on similar issue in the case of assessee’s husband, Shri. Binal S. Koradia, we hereby uphold the ultimate decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition under the head “income from house property”. The order of CIT(A) is hereby affirmed.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA no.9171/Mum./2010 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2015 - SHRI G.S. PANNU AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JJ. For The Revenue: Shri S.P. Walimbe For The Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 29th October 2010, passed by the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961 (for short the Act ). 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority and gave detailed submissions and the learned CIT(A) gave relief of ₹ 12,10,396/-, on the basis that ₹ 2,00,000/- include remuneration which has already been incurred as income from salary. Further, the first appellate authority gave relief of ₹ 5,35,396/-, on account of opening debit balance and another debit of ` ₹ 4,75,000/-. Being aggrieved by the relief given by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, relied upon the orders of Assessing Officer and contended before us that the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition of the impugned sum and CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the tune of ₹ 12,10,396/- and accumulated profit of Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. as on 31/3/2006 is ₹ 1,43,78,968/- as on 31/3/2007 is ₹ 8,00,97,861/-, hence this amount should be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee's opening balance is ₹ 5,35,396(Debit) as on 1st April 2006 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see from Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee holds 50% shares, while further payments were made during the year by the assessee to Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. on 3rd August 2006 of ₹ 4,75,000 which amount of ₹ 4,75,000 was received back on 18th August 2006 . The opening balance of ₹ 5,35,396 is receivable by assessee from the said company as on 1st April 2006 and to the extent amount received back cannot be added as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act as it is the return of loan given by assessee to Koradia Construction Private Limited. The assesee has produced statement of account as well bank statement of the assessee to prove his contention. Further the assessee has earned ₹ 2,00,000 as the salary from Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd., which has already been offered for taxation by the assessee in the return of income filed for the impugned year. Thus, in view of above we hold that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition to the tune of ₹ 12,10,396 and we uphold the same. Thus, the Revenue appeal fails on this ground. 7. Ground no.2, relates to deletion of addition of ₹ 8,59,873, on account of income from house property. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... divine and the same is used for the purpose of residence i.e. SOP. No rental income has been derived from this property. Reference in computation for C-402 was given just because tenant of Khokhani Bhavan, Vasai i.e. M/s. Sagar Construction M/s. Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. have registered office at C-402. Therefore, Assessing Officer assume that C-403 is also not Sop and computed deemed rent. 3. 2,73,000 Gala No.5 Sampada is let out to the same party as i.e. Bianco textiles to whom pressman House was given on rent. Gala No.5 Sampada is the property owned by the assessee and the same is let out to Bianco Textiles whose registered office is at Pressman House . Therefore, in computation in address of tenant Presman House were mention. Howeve,r The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly held Pressman House is another property which belong to the assessee and as per leave and licencse Gala No.5 Sampad was given on rent for ₹ 3.90 lac. 4. 1,00,800 Rent from Khokhani Bhavan, Vasai not disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has earned ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
