TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts in not allowing the loss in house property as claimed by the assessee & apart from that, he assessed income from House Property Rs. 3,17,940.00/-. However the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the ground of the assessee & house property loss was restricted to Rs. (-) 11,872.00/- in place of Rs. (-) 3,08,872.00/- thereby sustained the addition of Rs. 2,97,000.00/-. 4. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law & fact in making the addition of Rs. 12,209.00/- under income from other sources, the ld. CIT(A) also erred in sustaining the said addition. 5. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law & facts in disallowance of Rs. 18,75,50.00/- out of Hostel expenses the ld. CIT(A) sustained Rs. 75,000.00/- i.e. part of that. 6. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law & facts in not considering deduction u/s 80C Rs. 84,027.00/- However the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the deduction to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000.00/- he considered Rs. 73,057.00/- thereby sustained the addition of Rs. 45,393.00/-." 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an individual & filed return u/s. 139(4) of I.T. Act. 1961 on 26.03.2013 showing NIL income rather los....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that how much he received the salary during the year, but the learned A.O. narrated so many things in the assessment order and it shows that he proceeded with a prejudiced mind. What he states is that in the AY 2010 - 11 (ignored AY 2011 - 12) salary was Rs. 7,25,863/- and in this year it is NIL. He has not looked into the Return. In the Return the salary has been shown Rs. 1,80,000/- which is as per form No. 16 issued by the employer. On this issue the learned A.O. has no authority to question why it is reduced, how it can be given more since in the year under consideration the employee has worked in other school. This is the mutual thing between an employer and employee and the most important thing is that when the payment is given by the employer and is duly acknowledged by the employee, in that case there is no chance of increase or reduction. It is not a business income that can be based on the earlier year, hence the estimation of salary made by the learned A.O. based on the AY 2010 - 11 is totally wrong and addition is based on his assumption, therefore, may kindly be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) also reiterated the Ld. A.O.'s version & choose to estimate the salary in pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to hostel income, complete details were filed. We have given receipts and explained the account. There was a receipt of Rs. 11,51,600/-, out of that the assessee has shown income to the extent of Rs. 4,02,570/- which is around 35%. We submit that there are so many hostels in Kota City and income shown by us (i.e. 35%) is much more than the income shown by other hostel owners. Most of the hostel owners are showing income U/s 44AD i.e. 8 - 10% in comparison to that the income shown by the Assessee is much more. Hence, by mentioning that certain expenses could not be vouched or verified, the learned A.O. disallowed Rs. 1,87,500/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee has already shown a good percentage of profit, hence the estimated addition made by disallowing the expenses is totally wrong. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue but without going in to details sustained the part addition of Rs. 75,000/-. On perusal of details, your will find that the expenses are in following proportion: Salary 32.20% Food & Medical 25.10% Repair & Maintenance 7.72% Profit 35.08% 100.00 It is the bare minimum expenditure and the profit is 35% which is much more from retails business u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 (SC) which has been relied by the ld. CIT(A). In light of same, the ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 12. Regarding Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax salary income of Rs. 8,59,515/- and ld. CIT(A) restricting the same to Rs. 6,00,000/- as against 1.8 lakh claimed to be received by the assessee during the year. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee was a regular employee as well as Secretary of Kendriya Academy Educational Society, Kota and in A.Y 2010-11, he has shown salary income of Rs. 7,16,263/- and in subsequent assessment year 2013-14, he has shown salary income of Rs. 10,55,858/-. Given that the assessee has not shown any salary income for impugned assessment year, considering past year salary and 20% increment for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer has worked out the salary income at Rs. 8,59,515/- and brought to tax the same. As per the ld. CIT(A), though the finding of the AO also lacks any corroborative basis but it is also true practically that the appellant has been associated with the institution in the earlier years and he shown to have also generated sufficient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient facts on record, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the AO who shall examine the same afresh after calling from information from the respective institutions as well as after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Regarding Ground No. 3, the limited issued under consideration relates to determination of rental income derived by the assessee from its various properties. Given that in the return filed by the assessee, the assessee has not shown any rental income rather has claimed loss of Rs. 7,73,744/-, the AO referred to the return filed by the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 wherein the assessee has shown rental income of Rs. 96,000/- from property situated at Kota Junction, Kota, rental income of Rs. 1.2 lakh from House No. 756, Pratap Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan and rental income of Rs. 1.65 lakhs from property situated at Dadabari, Kota and on such basis of past rental income so disclosed by the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 and increment of 20%, he has determined the rental income at Rs. 4,54,200/- which on appeal has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 15.....