TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the assessee and the order of Ld. first appellate authority, in this regard, would not require any interference. In result, Ground No. 1 stands dismissed. Addition of notional rental income from two flats situated at Mumbai - adoption of deemed rent as per Municipal Rateable value - HELD THAT:- The issue is recurring in nature. The same has already been delved into by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case [ 2018 (5) TMI 1817 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein relying upon the decision in CIT V/s Tip Top Typography [ 2014 (8) TMI 356 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] directed Ld. AO to adopt the deemed rent as per Municipal Rateable value and assess the income accordingly. Ground No.2 stands partly allowed. Capital Gains - sale of painting - AO alleged that PAN of M/s Art Musings was not valid - HELD THAT:- It appears that the PAN has inadvertently been mentioned in the confirmation of account as AAAFA5038D which has led Ld. AO to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. There was no other reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. Nothing adverse is available on record. Therefore, since the evidence on record in the shape of confirmation of account, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The CIT (A) erred in disregarding the fact that the AO has contradicted herself at the time of recording the reasons. The AO herself acknowledged that the amount of ₹ 38,00,000/- has been offered to tax as Capital Gains in the Return of Income for the relevant assessment year; subsequently in the concluding paragraph she stated that the same amount of ₹ 38,00,000/- had escaped assessment. Ground No. 2: 'Annual Let Out Value' (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional ground of appeal thereby depriving the Appellant the option to categorize the property of his own choice as 'self occupied property', out of 3 properties owned by the Appellant, in spite of the property at Queens Court specifically mentioned as self occupied in the return of Income. (ii) The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the Annual Ratable Value u/s. 23(1)(a)/(b) of the 2 Worli properties (in spite of the property at Queens Court specifically mentioned as self occupied in the return of Income) at ₹ 9,90,000/- each, based on unauthentic information -on the pretext of 'local enquiry', instead of ado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. 2.3 The case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2015 directing the assessee to respond to the same. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 01/03/2016 declaring an income of ₹ 89.41 Lacs. The difference in income declared in two returns arises on account of the fact that in subsequent return, the assessee offered notional rent from two vacant house properties and additional Long- Term Capital Gains from sale of paintings which were stated to be gifted to him by his father over his life time. At the same time, the assessee demanded reasons for reopening the assessment which were duly supplied. Although the assessee raised objections against reopening of assessment, however, the same were rejected and the matter was proceeded with on the merits of the case. 2.4 In return of income filed in response to reassessment proceedings, the assessee had reflected receipts of ₹ 80.75 Lacs on account of sale of painting and offered the same as Long-Term Capital Gains in view of the fact that the same were gifted paintings and the cost of acquis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017. The Ld. CIT(A), while upholding the validity of assessment proceedings, confirmed the quantum additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee, Shri Prakash K. Jotwani, drawing our attention to the reasons recorded to invoke reassessment proceedings, advanced arguments to support the fact that reassessment proceedings stood vitiated in the eyes of laws. The quantum additions have been assailed on merits also. Our attention has been drawn to the orders of the Tribunal for AYs 2006-07 2007-08 for the submissions that similar view may be taken in this year also. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], relying upon the observations of Ld. AO, submitted that the assessee miserably failed to prove the sale of paintings and therefore, the income was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee. 5.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record and deliberated on the judicial pronouncements cited before us including the decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case in earlier years. First, we take up the issue of validity or reasses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, this situation would also lead us to same conclusion that there was escapement of income in terms of statutory provisions of Section 147. No arguments have been advanced in respect of ground no. 1(ii). Therefore, finding no substance in the legal pleadings, we hold that reassessment proceedings were validly initiated against the assessee and the order of Ld. first appellate authority, in this regard, would not require any interference. In result, Ground No. 1 stands dismissed. 5.3 So far as the addition of notional rental income from two flats situated at Mumbai is concerned, we find that the issue is recurring in nature. The same has already been delved into by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee s own case for AY 2006-07 ITA No. 4320/Mum/2016 order dated 11/05/2018, wherein the bench at para 18, relying upon the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Tip Top Typography 368 ITR 330 directed Ld. AO to adopt the deemed rent as per Municipal Rateable value and assess the income accordingly. This decision has subsequently been followed by Tribunal in AY 2007-08 ITA No.6989/Mum/2016 order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
