TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act on 26.12.2011. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order, made the addition of Rs. 3,91,307/- on income from House Property. No appeal was filed by assessee against the additions in the assessment order. The AO initiated the penalty on account of addition of notional rent as income from House Property of Rs. 3,91,307/-. Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 26.12.2011 was served upon the assessee. Assessee filed her reply dated 08.05.2012 on 22.05.2012. In the reply, the assessee contended that the assessee voluntary offered notional income on House Property. There was no concealment on the part of assessee and no tax payable on the aforesaid assessed income. The reply of assessee was not accepted by AO. The AO hold that, in case the assessment was not selected for scrutiny, the income not offered by the assessee on the House Property would have escaped from the assessment. It was the duty of assessee to disclose true amount of her total income in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The AO levied the penalty @ 100% on the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The AO worked out the penalty of Rs. 1,33,006/-. On appeal by assessee before the ld. CIT(A), t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bombay High Court in DIT Vs Administrator of Late Mr. F.E. Dinshaw (2013) Taxman.com 95(Bom) held that if the claim made by the assessee in the return of income, which was rejected by revenue, it would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The ld CIT(A) passed the order after considering the decision in DIT Vs Administrator of Late Mr. F.E. Dinshaw (supra). Considering the above factual and legal position we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2009-10 is dismissed. ITA No. 333/Mum/2014 for AY 2010-11 7. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in holding the assessee was eligible for Municipal Ratable Value even though the assessee has NOT offered the notional income on deemed let out property u/s 23(1) of the total investment made to 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in holding the assessee eligible for Municipal Ratable Value even t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....direction to the AO that assessee was eligible for municipal ratable value. In fact, the assessee never offered the notional income on deemed let out of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act on total investment made to acquire such residential and commercial properties. The assessee never offered notional income on deemed let out of the property. The AO computed the notional rent @ 8.50% of total investment and allowed the allowable deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Ld. DR for the Revenue further submitted that the order of AO was quite reasonable. It was also argued that the similar disallowance was made against the assessee in earlier years but no appeal was filed by assessee. 10. We have considered the submission of ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee furnished the details of following properties: Sr No. Name of the property Value Remarks 1 Flat at Tahnee Height : Joint with G.I. Kakadia 21683500 Self Occupied 2 Flat at Kheni Tower 108668790 No Possession 3 Flat with Worli (K. Raheja) 24483699 Interior work in progress 4 Flat at Worli (Shri Ram Mill)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uide; (iii) In the event the security deposit collected and refundable interest free and the monthly compensation shows a total mismatch or does not reflect the prevailing rate or the attempt is to deflate or inflate the rent by such methods, then, as held by the Delhi High Court in Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del)(FB), the AO is not prevented from carrying out the necessary investigation and enquiry. He must have cogent and satisfactory material in his possession and which will indicate that the parties have concealed the real position. He must not make a guess work or act on conjectures and surmises. There must be definite and positive material to indicate that the parties have suppressed the prevailing rate. Then, the enquiries that the AO can make would be for ascertaining the going rate. He can make a comparative study and make a analysis. In that regard, transactions of identical or similar nature can be ascertained by obtaining the requisite details. However, there also the AO must safeguard against adopting the rate stated therein straightway. He must find out as to whether the property which has been let out or given on leave and license basis is of a similar nature, n....