9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 declaring an income of Rs. 1,81,67,710/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of Rs. 2,22,750 to the returned income. Subsequently, the CIT perused the assessment records by invoking the provisions of section 263 and observed that there were certain discrepancies which are as follows: "3. On examination of the assessment record, discrepancies are noticed in the following issues: a) As seen from the agreement entered with the tenants, the municipal tax shall be payable by the tenants and as such the claim of municipal tax of Rs. 3,57,524 needs to be disallowed. b) The assessee received maintenance charges from tenants of Rs. 9,55,856/-. Since the assessee had claimed expenditure for main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue u/s 24(a). There is no link of expenditure incurred. As such 30% deduction is allowable whether amount spent or not. With regard to maintenance charges, details are as under: Building & Maint. Charges Rs. 3,95,256 Electricity charges Rs. 72,757 Salary Rs. 3,00,000 Security charges Rs. 4,04,634 Total Rs. 11,72,647 Maintenance charges received is Rs/9,55,856. Thus, there is deficit of Rs. 2,16,791 which is not even claimed from the income. Neither maintenance charge nor expenditure incurred is to be considered u/s 24. c) There is no mismatch of income as per Return of income and TDS details. TDS on rent was deduction u/s 194I whereas TDS on maintenance charge was deducted u/s 194C. Rent Maintenance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and at para 2 thereof is the issue with regard to the maintenance charges received from the tenants and the expenditure on maintenance claimed against the same. Page 19 to 20 is the information submitted by the assessee after which 154 proceedings were dropped. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO had verified and applied his mind to the information and the relevant issues and therefore, the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO reported in (2016) 70 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum.Trib) wherein it was held that the Commissioner u/s 263 cannot direct the AO to carry out fishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment without pointing out the errors committed by the AO and without giving a finding as to how the assessment order is erroneous. From the literal reading of the order u/s 263, we find that the CIT pointed out certain discrepancies and then subsequently reproduced the assessee's submissions and then directed the AO to redo the assessment. Thus, there is no finding whatsoever, as to whether the assessee's contentions were acceptable to him or not and as to how the assessment order is erroneous. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Pr. CIT is not sustainable. The assessee's appeal is accordingly allowed.
8. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th December, 2018. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
