9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Value in terms of Section 23(1)(a) by adding notional interest @ 7% on interest-free deposit of Rs. 1,20,50,000/-. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made at Rs. 8,43,500/- being notional interest which could form a part of Annual Letting Value of the property in terms of section 23(1)(a) of the Act." 2. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and the main source of income of the assessee are salary income, income from house property, long term capital gains and income from other I sources. A search and seizure action was conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 19.7.2007 at the premises of Barot Group under which the assessee was also covered. Some books of accounts and documents were found and seized. A notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on the assessee on 27.2.2008 which was complied with by the assessee by the by filing return of income dated 17.3.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 17,41,160/-. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) dated 12.08.2008 was issued and served upon the assessee on 22.08.2008. During the assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decisions relied on by the Ld Counsel for the assessee and also the relevant material placed on record. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to the correctness of the ALV of the property, which was rented out. AO considered the rental advance and the notional interest thereon for arriving at the ALV. This is the matter of dispute between the both the parties before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. Identical issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by its various decisions mentioned above. On perusal of the cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra), we find the decision of the Tribunal in the case I of M/s. Gagan Trading Co. Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No.5288 & 5468/M/2012 (AY 2009-2010), dated 29.7.2015, wherein one of us (AM) is a party to the said order of the Tribunal, is relevant here since the identical issue was decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the sake of completeness of this order, we find it relevant to extract the relevant portions of the said order of the Tribunal (supra) dated 29.7.2015 which is as under: "5. ................. wherein the said questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit has affected the rent charged by the assessee. We cannot support the mode of additions made by the AO on estimate basis in the absence of any evidence on record. Considering the same, respectfully following the above cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra) and also following the principle of consistency, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the CIT (A) in deleting the addition made by the AO is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals are dismissed. 5. From the above facts, we find that the the case of the assessee is identical as to that decided by the coordinate bench in assessee's own case (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue. I.T.A. Nos.2887/Mum/2011 6. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR did not press ground no.1, hence dismissed as not pressed. I 7. The issue raised in the ground no.2 relates to upholding the order of AO by the ld. CIT(A) qua the addition of Rs. 19 lakhs made under section 2(22)(e) of the Act on account of advances given by M/s Ideal Toll Road Investments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id by BIEL in 2007 on account of litigation. The subsisting relation between the company and the appellant is such where the probability of entering into such a contract without any intention of buying of flat is very high. Therefore, in my considered opinion; there is substantial merit in the AO's contention that the bogey of allotment of flat has been merely created to escape "the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. In view of this, the contention of the appellant is not accepted and addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the AO is confirmed in the hands the appellant. The said amount cannot be said to have been utilized for purchase of the flat. Since the said addition is deleted, in the hands of M/s. BIEL, in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, addition is confirmed in the hands of the appellant on substantive basis, though the addition was made on protective basis in this case by the ld.AO. This ground of appeal is decided against the appellant" 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below on the issue. We find that the addition under section 2(22)(e) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
