9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to adduce any material to justify the quantum of rental income not declared by him in the return of income and confirming addition of Rs. 15,420/- made by the Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed is illegal, unjustified and excessive. 3. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the appellant was owning a house property at Bayana and hence was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act. The said finding is illegal and unjustified. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee was not eligible to claim benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act and confirming the disallowance of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round of reopening was not taken before the ld. CIT(A). Further he submitted that the assessee submitted a balance sheet for the year ending on 31/3/2008 during the original assessment proceedings where in the column of fixed assets, the assessee has disclosed house property valued at Rs. 16,66,980 and on that basis, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee was having two residential properties, one located at Bayana valued at Rs. 2,25,,180 and the other at Jaipur valued at Rs. 14,41,820/-, therefore the assessee was not entitled for benefit of Section 54F of the Act and the reopening was justified. 6. I have gone through the rival contentions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at difference in the income declared is on account of service tax liability for the month of June, 2007 which has been paid by the appellant. 5.4 The appellant has in the course of present proceedings reiterated the submissions filed before the AO and failed to substantiate the reasons for difference in the amount of rental income declared in the return of income and as shown by the tenant in form 16 issued to the appellant. 5.5 Having considered the submissions filed on this issue and after going through the material available on record, I find that appellant has failed to adduce any material to justify the quantum of rental income not declared by him in the return of income. I find that rental income has been under declared and the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance sheet was a mistake of the accountant. The assessee has submitted an affidavit in this regard.
11. After hearing both the sides on this issue, I find it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall investigate with regard to the claim of the assessee that he is not having any property at Bayana and after ascertaining the correct fact, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue accordingly in accordance with law. Accordingly, both the grounds of the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes only.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2017. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
