TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,26,98,284/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 11.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,28,90,290/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 14.08.2017 (in appeal No.Pn/CIT(A)-11/DCIT, Cen.Cir.1(1)/PN/11/ 2015-16) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : "1. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofit and Loss account, AO noticed that assessee was holding two flats as closing stock, the flats were vacant. AO was of the view that the assessee was the owner of two or more properties and therefore the provisions of Sec.23(4) of the Act were attracted. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the deemed rent in respect of the closing stock should not brought to be tax. Assessee made the submissions and also stated that no rent has been earned from these flats. The submissions made by the assessee were not found acceptable to the AO. AO was of the view that as per provisions of Sec.23(4) of the Act, assessee should have offered deemed rental income from the aforesaid two flats owned by it. AO thereafter, made enquiries to calculate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re vacant and no rental income has been derived by the assessee firm. We find that identical issue arose in the case of Gajendra Pawar (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head 'income from house property' on the four unsold flats/ godowns by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in the closing stock the four unsold flats. It is also an undisputed fact that these four flats were vacant throughout the year under consideration and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old flats under the head 'income from house property'. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition made under Section 23 of the Act as income from house property." 7. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s. Runwal Construction (supra) has been set aside / stayed by higher Judicial Forum. In view of the aforesaid facts, we following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s. Runwal Construction (supra) hold that in the present case AO was not correct in bringing to tax notional annual letting value of four unsold flats under the head "income from house property". We therefore set aside the addition made ....