TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... touch stone of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is not sustainable, as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case has held that the said decision would not impinge upon the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s jurisdiction to admit additional/fresh claims/grounds. Accordingly, we direct that this claim of the assessee should be considered. We note that while canvassing this appeal, the assessee has filed the additional evidences to counter the A.O.’s finding that the assessee is owned more than one flat. These additional evidences were not submitted before the authorities below. As a matter of fact, it is the plea of the assessee that no opportunity in this regard was granted by the A.O. Upon careful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 2,09,389/- 4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the property at Sai Enterprises and the Satellite Flat were under construction during the year and the Appellant did not have possession of the same, and hence, no notional rental income could be charged thereon. 5. Without prejudice to the above, even if some notional rental income can be charged on the under-construction properties, the notional rental income of ₹ 2,09,389/- is highly excessive and unreasonable. 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal. In reasonable cause for condonation of the delay, it has been submitted that the assessee is 65 years old widow and was suffering from several ailments. 4. Upon heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abetes which has led to the assessee facing multiple health problems. The assessee is a 65 year old widow and does not have anyone in the family living with her to support her in pursuing the assessment or the appeal before the CIT (A). The assesse could not provide these documents to the Authorised Representative at the time of hearing before the AO and the CIT (A). Therefore, the Authorised Representatives who appeared before the lower authorities could not be provided with the necessary details. 4. The documents in question are essential to support the claim of the Assessee and go to the root of the matter and are germane in deciding the issues in the present appeal. The purchase agreement in respect of Sai Enterprises flat show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence may kindly be admitted in the interest of justice and fair play. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Born) and Patna Tribunal in the case of Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat.) (TM) for the admission of additional evidence. 7. In the compilation in paper book, the additional evidence submitted is as under: Sr. No. Particulars Purchase agreement dated 30th May, 2012 of flat at Sai Enterprise Photographs showing present stage of construction of Satellite Tower Flat Share Certificate for Mahavir Nagar Dhrushti Co-op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 8. In the ground relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of fact, it is the plea of the assessee that no opportunity in this regard was granted by the A.O. 10. Upon careful consideration, in the interest of justice, we remit this ground as well as additional evidences to the file of the A.O. to consider the claim of the assessee u/s. 54F. Needless to add, the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 11. Both the counsel fairly agreed to the above proposition. 12. Another ground raised relates to taxing notional rental income on flats. In this regard, the assessee s contention is that these flats were under construction. Since we have already remitted the above said ground and the additional evidence which also have a bearing on this issue, this issue is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
