2013 (6) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law, reads as under:- "(b). Whether Income Tax authorities such as assessing officer, CIT(Appeals) or I.T.A.T. can take a different view in subsequent assessment year in the matter where facts and law are the same ? (e). Whether the same income derived from the house property as rent can be assessed to income tax first for Smt. Ansuya for the assessment year 1997-98 and thereafter the appellant and thus income from house property of Lucknow was subjected to double taxation of income tax ? (g) Whether ITAT, Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) and assessing officer can change the A.L.V. for rented property for 9 months to 12 months witho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was considered as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(Appeals) upholds the same. However, in the second appeal, the Tribunal after considering the total area owned by the assessee and other material assessed the agricultural income at Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the assessee got a relief of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the addition pertaining to agriculture income was sustained at Rs.1,20,000/-. Regarding the rental income from the properties, it appears that the assessee was having two properties situated at Allahabad and Lucknow. For Allahabad property, the assessee has shown the rental income at Rs.90,000/-. 1/5th for repair etc. i.e. Rs.18,000/- was deducted. Thus, A.L.V. comes to Rs.90,000-18,000....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....son. The AO has enhanced the rental income illegally which was upheld by the appellate authorities. He also submits that the income from the house property remain the same as half share of the co-owner of the appellant Smt. Ansuya was shown in the earlier assessment years. He submits that the owner of the house property means persons entitled to receive the rent. He also submits that the A.L.V. was wrongly taken by the AO pertaining to the Lucknow property. On the other hand, Sri D.D. Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department justified the impugned order. After hearing both the parties, it appears that on 16.11.1992, a certificate of the Tehsildar was issued, which is not relevant for the assessment year under con....