TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an ITAT order in the case of co-owner, which has not been set aside by Hon'ble Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider this additional evidence and decide accordingly. We further hold that there is no estoppel against the assessee in now offering self occupied property and deemed let out property in a different manner than that offered initially. Assessee is very much entitled to plan its taxation so as to minimize the burden so long as the method is not colourable. Here the approach of the assessee can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a colourable device. - I.T.A. No. 7215 to 7217/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found. Details were as under :- S.No. Description of the property with share Sq.mt. pertained to the assessee Sq.ft. pertained to the assessee 1 Flat No. 17B at Kalpana, 96, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai SOP SOP 2 1/2nd undivided share in Flat No. 16 at Kalpana, 96, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai 147.55 1587.64 3 1/3rd undivided share in Flat No. 18 at Kalpana, 96, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai 52.96 569.85 Assessing Officer observed that the assessee owned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. The main contentions of the appellant are that the Flat No. 17B at Kalpana, 1/2nd undivided share in Flat at No. 16 and l/3rd undivided share in Flat No. 18 at Kalpana, 96-B, Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive, Mumbai were occupied by her and other members of her family and hence these flats together constitutes only one house property , though the same are more than one residential units because she was occupying all these flats for herself and her family members and hence need to be treated as SOP. In support of her claim the appellant has placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements as detailed above. The appellant has also submitted that Flat No. 16 and 18 at Kalpana, 96, Netaji Subhash Road, Marine Drive; Mumbai is extremely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al evidence which was not placed before the authorities below. Though the Revenue has challenged the additional ground and raised ground that how flat No. 16 18 be considered as combined single unit. Further the Revenue has also challenged that earlier assessee had claimed Flat No. 17B as self occupied property. 10. Upon careful consideration, we find that since there is an ITAT order in the case of co-owner, which has not been set aside by Hon'ble Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider this additional evidence and decide accordingly. We further hold that there is no estoppel against the assessee in now offering sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
