Tribunal Decision: Income Verification, Expense Disallowance, and Deduction Allowance

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the revised return as invalid since it was filed under Section 139(4) instead of Section 139(1). The issue of addition to salary income was remanded to the AO for verification due to discrepancies in reported earnings. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the rental and sale status of properties in the case of loss in house property. The ground of addition under income from other sources was dismissed as not pressed. The disallowance of hostel expenses was deleted, and a deduction under Section 80C was allowed. The appeal was disposed of with specific directions for verification and reconsideration on certain grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of Revised Return
2. Addition to Salary Income
3. Loss in House Property
4. Addition under Income from Other Sources
5. Disallowance of Hostel Expenses
6. Deduction under Section 80C

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Revised Return:
The assessee filed an original return under Section 139(4) on 28.03.2013 and a revised return on 29.06.2013. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] did not consider the revised return. The Tribunal held that under Section 139(5), a revised return can only be filed if the original return was filed under Section 139(1). Since the original return was filed under Section 139(4), the revised return was invalid. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court ruling in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT. Therefore, the ground regarding the revised return was dismissed.

2. Addition to Salary Income:
The AO added Rs. 8,59,515 to the salary income based on past earnings, while the CIT(A) reduced it to Rs. 6,00,000. The assessee claimed to have received only Rs. 1,80,000 as per Form 16 from a different institution. The Tribunal noted fluctuations in the salary reported over the years and remanded the matter to the AO to verify the actual salary received from the institutions during the year. Thus, this ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Loss in House Property:
The AO estimated rental income based on past returns and added Rs. 4,54,200, which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee argued that only one property was rented out for Rs. 1,20,000, and other properties were either sold or not rented. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation reasonable and directed the AO to verify the sale and rental status of the properties. The ground was thus disposed of with directions for verification.

4. Addition under Income from Other Sources:
The assessee's representative did not press this issue during the hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.

5. Disallowance of Hostel Expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of hostel expenses due to lack of documentation, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 75,000. The assessee argued that a 35% profit margin was reasonable compared to other hostels. The Tribunal found the profit rate reasonable and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). This ground was allowed.

6. Deduction under Section 80C:
The assessee provided an LIC certificate during the hearing. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the certificate and allow a deduction of Rs. 9,878. This ground was allowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with specific directions for verification and reconsideration on certain grounds, while others were dismissed or allowed based on the merits and submissions. The order was pronounced on 06/03/2020.

---