TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one house for self-occupation, the assessee has offered income from 4 properties and for the balance 3 properties, assessee has shown 'Nil' income. The AO observed that as per section 23 of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee should have adopted fair rental value and offered the same to tax. Therefore, with regard to a property at Tolichowki, he adopted the rental income earned by the assessee during the earlier FYs with 10% hike as the rental income for the relevant AY and accordingly, made the total addition of Rs. 1,65,606/- as income from house property. Further, with regard to other two properties at Banjara Hills, he observed that they were under tenancy and he brought the rent agreed to between the parties to tax though the assessee contended that there was a dispute with the tenants and they were not paying the rent. 2.1 Thereafter, the AO also observed that the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs. 7 lakhs. He observed that the assessee's brother, one Mr. SM Lateefuddin, had given a statement on 30/12/2013 wherein he has stated that agricultural produce i.e. coffee bean was produced in 65 acres and is sold only to one company i.e. ABC Company and that ABC Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2013-14 , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax similarly erred in bringing to tax entire income from First Floor of property bearing no. 8-2-596/5/B/l, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad less deduction under section 24(a) at Rs. 63,840, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant had only 1/6 th share in the income from the First Floor of property, bearing no. 8-2-596/B/I situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 9. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax further erred in not appreciating the fact that there was a dispute with the tenant and as such he was not paying rent to the appellant and the amount received by the appellant has been duly disclosed during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2013-14, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 10. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,28,300 out of the agricultural income declared by the appellant, on the facts and in the circumstances o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se property' and even in the earlier years, the income received from the same godown has been offered / treated as income from house property. However, I agree with the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that hike of 10% on rent should not have been adopted, but the rental paid by the said party prior to vacating the same should have been adopted as fair rental value for the period when the property was vacant. Therefore, I direct the AO to recompute the income from this property by adopting the rent paid by the party before the said property was vacated as fair rental value. Thus, Grounds No. 2 & 3 are partly allowed. 7. As regards ground Nos. 4 to 9 with regard to rental income from the property situated at Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, and covers ground floor and first floor of the said building, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a dispute with the tenant with regard to the rent and the assessee has filed a suit for eviction and also recovery of rent from the tenant. He submitted that the tenant was depositing the rent in the court pending final decision and eventually when the case was decided in favour of the assessee, the Court released a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, prayed that the order of the AO be confirmed on this issue. 12. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, I find that all the brothers of the assessee together held agricultural land to the extent of 97 acres and offered agricultural income accordingly in their returns of income which has been accepted by the AO except in the case of the assessees' before the Tribunal. Thus, the disallowance was made only in the hands of two brothers relying on the statement of SM Lateefuddin. However, I find that SM Lateefuddin has clearly stated that there were other crops grown in the land and earned income from such other crops as well. The AO has relied upon the statement of SM Lateefuddin, but he cannot pick and choose and accept only part of the statement favourable to the revenue and disbelieve the other part, which is in favour of the assessee. Shri Lateefuddin in reply to Q.No.10, has clearly stated that coffee, was in 65 acres, Nilgiri trees in 10 acres and the balance area was paddy field. The AO has taken into consideration the income from coffee beans and minor income from pepper and cardamom only. He ignored the income from paddy and Nilgiri trees. AO has ....