Smt. Sunita Karamchandani, Bangalore v. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 843/BANG/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 84321114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AFOPK6798L
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 843/BANG/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Sunita Karamchandani, Bangalore
Respondent ITO, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 09-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 09-06-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 25-06-2010
Judgment Text
ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'B' BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. BHARATHVAJA SANKAR VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.843/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) SMT. SUNITA KARAMCHANDANI NO.30/A 5TH MAIN JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BANGALORE 560 046 .. APPELL ANT PAN : AFOPK6798L V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD -8 (2) BANGALORE .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. V. SRINIVASAN CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS GOSE JT.CIT O R D E R PER N. BHARATHVAJA SANKAR VICE PRESIDENT : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SMT. SUNI TA KARAMCHANDANI AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME- TAX(A)-II BANGALORE U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE A CT DATED.15.02.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL W HICH ARE AS UNDER : ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 2 I) THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID -AB-INITIO FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION ESPECIALLY THE MAND ATORY REQUIREMENTS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S.148 OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST AND HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUEN TLY THE REASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN A SSESSING A SUM OF ` . 7 75 314/- AS THE APPELLANT'S 50% SHARE OF THE IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY LET-OUT TO M/S. MAY FAIR LTD. NO.184 MEZZANINE FLOOR COMMERCIAL STRE ET UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT 'S CASE. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FAIL ED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RENT FROM PROPERTY LET-OUT TO M /S. MAY FAIR LTD WAS RECEIVED BY SRI. S. N. LADHANI THE APPELLA NT'S FATHER AND THE ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN HIS HANDS AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN A SUM OF ` .3 96 000/- RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER AS RENTAL INCOME WHICH OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN VACATED. IV) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER W ITH THE HON'BLE CCIT/DG THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABL E TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B OF THE ACT W HICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT 'S CASE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THE ASSSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON 31.3.2005 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` .1 39 056/- ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 3 UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AFTER DEDUCTION OF ` .2 58 744/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND ANNUAL CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND ANNUAL CHARGES FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF TH E ACT. THE FACTS CULLED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A PROPERTY SITUATED IN COMMERCIA L STREET ON LEASE FROM SHRI. M. A. HABIB AND SMT. PARVEEN HABIB VIDE LEASE DEED DATED.06.02.1997 ON AN ANNUAL RENT OF ` .1 29 372/-. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN SUB-LET THIS PROPERTY TO M/S. MAYFAIR LTD. AT THE RATE OF ` .1 40 000/- PER MONTH. HENCE THE ANNUAL RENTAL INC OME WORKED OUT TO ` .16 80 000/-. THERE WAS AN UNWRITTEN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME OF ` .16 80 000/- FROM THE SUB-LET PROPERTY WAS TO BE SH ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER FATHER AT 50% EACH. ACCORDING LY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF RENTAL INCOME AT ` .8 40 000/- FROM WHICH AN AMOUNT OF ` .64 686/- BEING 50% OF THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO HER LANDLORD WAS DEDUCTED AND THE ASSES SEE'S INCOME FROM PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED AT ` .7 75 314/-. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 4 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST GROUND RELATING TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 SUBMITT ED THAT THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT LACKS JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY T HE ADDITION OF ` .7 75 314/- NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED. HE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THE SUM OF ` .3 96 000/- WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HER INC OME ERRONEOUSLY AS THE SAME HAD BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY HER FATHER A ND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE VACATED SO ALSO THE INTEREST U/S.23 4A AND 234B DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA LS ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE FIRST GROUND RELATING TO LACK OF JURI SDICTION IS CONCERNED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND ANNUAL CHARGES AS PER THE AMENDED P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2002. HE HAS A LSO HELD THAT SINCE THE RETURN FILED WAS NEITHER PROCESSED U/S.143(1) N OR ASSESSED U/S.143(3) PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.148 AND AL SO CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WA S FILED ON 31.03.2005 I.E. BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S.13 9(4) THE RETURN FILED WAS 'NON-EST'. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME- ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 5 TAX(A) WAS CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX(A) ON THIS GROUND. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP THE GROUND RELATING TO DETERMINAT ION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` .7 75 314/-. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD MI SERABLY FAILED TO FURNISH DETAILS AND EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM EVEN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM EVEN BEFORE US WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). CONCURRING WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME- TAX(A) ON THIS GROUND. 7. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOU S DECLARATION OF RENTAL INCOME AT ` .3 96 000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME WAS RECEIVED AND OFFERED TO TAX BY HER FATHE R THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IN PARA 4.5 OF HIS OR DER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 6 '4.5. .. IF THE ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME WAS RECEIVED AND OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT'S FATHER THEN THE APPELL ANT SHOULD HAVE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN PERMISSI BLE PERIOD UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE IT ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.03.2005. THEREFORE FILING OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(5) DOES NOT ARISE. SECONDLY THE COPIES OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 WAS NOT FURNISHED IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAI M THAT ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF HER FAT HER AND ACCORDINGLY OFFERED FOR TAX. UNDER THE FACTS AND T HE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM THEREFORE IT IS INFERRED THA T THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS CORRECT AND UPHOLD THE SAME.' 8. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WE FULLY AGREE WITH HIM IN CONFIRMIN G THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) ON THIS GROUND ALSO. 9. IN RESPECT OF THE GROUND RELATING TO LEVY OF INT EREST U/SS.234A AND 234B THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS DIS MISSED THIS GROUND BY HOLDING THAT SINCE THE LEVY OF INTEREST U NDER THE SAID SECTIONS IS MANDATORY THE LEVY OF INTEREST ITSELF CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ITA.843/BANG/2010 PAGE - 7 IN APPEAL UNLESS THERE IS CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROV ISIONS OF THE RELEVANT SECTION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE UPHOLD THE DEC ISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IN THIS REGARD. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15TH JULY 2011 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT