BIPIN M. GANDHI, MUMBAI v. C.I.T.24, MUMBAI

ITA 2616/MUM/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 261619914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AABPG9859N
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2616/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant BIPIN M. GANDHI, MUMBAI
Respondent C.I.T.24, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 01-03-2017
Next Hearing Date 01-03-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 18-04-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2616/MUM/2012 : A.Y : 2006 - 07 BIPIN M. GANDHI 401 BIPIN BUILDING 4 TH FLOOR LINKING ROAD SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400 054 (APPELLANT) PAN : AABPG9859N VS. ITO - 24(1)(1) MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMAN KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 09/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /11/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME T AX - 24 MUMBAI (IN SHORT THE COMMISSIONER) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 15 . 11 .201 1 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 - 07 WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 14 . 03 .20 08 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 2616/MUM/2012 BIPIN M. GANDHI 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS NOTICED THAT INSPITE OF FIXING OF APPEAL ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION AND SERVICE OF NO TICE BY RPAD NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING D ISPOSED OFF EX - PARTE THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT - REVENUE ON MERITS AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS UNDER. 4. THE COMMISSIONER HAS FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 14.03.2008 AS ER RONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT ON TWO GROUNDS. FIRSTLY ON ACCOUNT OF QUANTUM OF INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER REVEALS THAT IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING RENTAL INCOMES IN RESPECT OF TWO PROPERT IES ; FIRSTLY FROM TATA MOTORS LTD. AND SECONDLY FROM LAXMI AUTOWILD (P) LTD. AS PER THE DETAILS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN PARA 3 THE RE NTAL INCOME FROM THE TWO PROPERTIES WORK ED OUT TO RS.3 66 000/ - WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF RS.2 40 817/ - WHICH AS PER THE COMMISSIONER WAS WRONGLY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE COMMISSIONER FURTHER REFERR ED TO THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF TERMINATION OF THE LEAVE & LICENCE AGREEMENT OF TATA MOTORS LTD. IN THE YEAR THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ACTUAL RENT 3 ITA NO. 2616/MUM/2012 BIPIN M. GANDHI RECEIVED VIS - A - VIS THE CONTRACTED RENT FOR T HE FULL YEAR . THE COMMISSIONER HAS RESTORED TH IS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATES TO CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF RS.20 57 000/ - AND THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54EC OF RS.2 10 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE BONDS OF NABARD. AS PER THE COMMISSIONER TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXTRA FSI AVAILABLE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN INFERRED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS MERELY COMPENSATION FOR ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT TWO MORE FLOORS IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. A S PER THE COMMISSIONER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE PROOF THE AMOUNT OFFERED FOR ASSESSMENT AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAPITAL GAINS WAS WRONG AND INSTEAD IT WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DEDUCTIO N U/S 54EC OF THE ACT WAS ALSO WRONGLY CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THIS ASPECT THE COMMISSIONER CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE PROOF DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT T HE IMPUGNED CONSIDERATION TO BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALSO DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. DR AS ALSO THE DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH WOULD ENABLE US TO INTERFERE WITH THE 4 ITA NO. 2616/MUM/2012 BIPIN M. GANDHI FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM. THUS ASSESSEE FAILS IN HIS APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 T H NOVEMBER 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATE : 2 9 T H NOVEMBER 201 7 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R B BENCH MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI