9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use Property by the Assessing Officer(AO) and as sustained by the ld.CIT(A). The relevant facts in this regard are that during the year under consideration i.e. F.Y.2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee has shown House Property Income from property at Sindh Society, Pune for Rs.5,500/- for the entire year. Property was let out to the Daughter of the assessee Ms.Gauri Kirloskar. Further, on perusal of computation of income for the A.Y. 2013-14, it was noticed by the AO that the same House Property was let out to Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd., for a period of Six Months and the total rent received was Rs.11 lakhs which was discontinued during the F.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, according to the AO, the Annual Let out Value[ALV] of the Property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Tiptop Typography 368 ITR 330 (Bom). The ld.CIT(A) observed that the AO has computed ALV on the basis of actual rent received by the assessee for Six Months during the A.Y.2013-14 for the same property. It was further observed that though the assessee had submitted relatable value from the Municipal Authorities of Rs.6,140/-, which is lesser than the Actual Rent received for the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14, it would not apply to the case of the assessee since already Assessing Officer considered that assessee received actual rent in the just preceding year at a higher amount. 4. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee could not prove that even though the relatable value from Municipal Authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y. 2013-14. In such circumstances, the amount of rent receivable computed by the AO of Rs.24,20,000/- for the A.Y. 2014-15 cannot be faulted with. The Municipal Valuation does not help the assessee in view of the specific provisions of section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) further observed that in the case of the assessee, the Fair Market Rent was at Rs.24,20,000/- which was based on the Fair Market Rent shown by the assessee himself in A.Y. 2013-14. Now, the assessee is suddenly offering only Rs.5,500/- as rent received per annum for the same property which is let out to his Daughter. It is not for the AO to prove that why the same property has been given at an exorbitant low rent to the Daughter of the assessee when the actual rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld.AR of the assessee was repeatedly saying that it is for the AO to prove why there has been such discrepancy in the rent amount. The legal scenario is very clear that once such a discrepancy has been demonstrated and examined by the Department, the onus is on the assessee to establish the reasons for such disparity in rental income. The AO has not considered any outside property comparable rents nor has taken into consideration any other extraneous circumstances, but has only considered the disparity of rent in assessee's own property, on one hand what he had received during the A.Y. 2013-14 and on the other, what he has received in A.Y. 2014-15. It is the duty of the assessee to explain this disparity with possible reasons and mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
