TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for reopening of the assessment do not show that any new material has come to light for reopening of the assessment – Held that - present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs - The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment show that there is no application of mind by the AO which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion – Notice issued u/s 147/148 quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- - 8683 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2009 - A. K. SIKRI and VALMIKI J. MEHTA JJ. Mr. O.S. Bajpai, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V.N. Jha, Mr. B.K. Singh, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate, for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sites on account of rent free unfurnished accommodation computed by the employer as per details on record is Rs.27,000/-. As per Rule-3 of Income Tax Rules, 1962, the value for rent free unfurnished accommodation should be computed be @ 10% of salary hence the value of housing perquisites should have been taken by the assessee at Rs.66,834/- (Her gross salary during the year was Rs.6,68,344/-) instead of Rs.27000/-, leading to under disclosure of income to the tune of Rs.39,834/-. 2. In her computation of income statement, the assessee as well as her husband have claimed loss of Rs.72815/- each under the head "Income from House Property" on a/c of interest on housing loan. No supporting certificate issued by the banker in support of cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. The second reason for reopening of the assessment was that the annual letting value of the house property should have been declared for assessment purposes as the assessee had made a claim of interest expenditure on the housing loan taken for the property. 3. Before us Mr. O.S. Bajpai, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the notices in question are clearly misconceived and are simply for harassing the petitioners who are professionals. The counsel has contended that the reasons which have been given for reopening of the assessment do not show that any new material has come to light for reopening of the assessment or that on the reasons stated there can be said to be that the officer had "r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d given a TDS certificate after due calculation valuing these perquisites at Rs. 27,000/- for each of the petitioners. According to the counsel, this perquisite was correctly worked out for the assessment year 2005-2006 in terms of Rule 3 Table 1, The relevant part with the facts in question is reproduced below: Circumstances Where accommodation is unfurnished (b) where the accommodation is taken on lease or rent by the employer Actual amount of lease rental paid or payable by the employer or 20% of salary whichever is lower as reduced by the rent, if any, actually paid by the employee. Applying this rule the perquisite of Rs. 27,000/- in each case was worked out as follows:- A. Annual r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of bank accounts with the details of the family members and the children with their particulars including the school they were studying, details of gifts received or given, all foreign trips made by them and family, cash flow statement for the year and the statement of affairs for the relevant year and the earlier year for comparison, details of LIC, PPF investments and so on. It is quite clear that none of these queries pertain to the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The learned senior counsel has further contended that the second reason for reopening of the assessment with respect to alleged non-disclosure of the annual letting value, the same has no basis because the petitioners were at Raipur due to their employment and, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The conclusions which have been arrived at by the officer in the reasons recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, are in fact wholly without basis because in the relevant assessment year the assessees were in fact posted at Raipur and there was therefore no question that the assessees occupied a rent free accommodation from its employers at A-13, EHIRC Residential Tower, Okhla Road, New Delhi. As already stated above, in fact after August 2001 and even when the petitioners were in Delhi, they were occupying their own flat in Shipra Sun City and were not occupying any accommodation of the employers. It is not understood as to how the Assessing Officer has arrived at the conclusion that in the relevant assessment year the assessees we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
