TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorized Representative of the assessee further submitted that the assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal challenging validity of reopening and the assessment order. 2.1. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee made four fold legal submissions challenging reopening under section 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The first objection of the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period of four years. The notice under section 148 of the Act dated 19/3/2014 was issued without obtaining proper sanction under section 151 of the Act. The notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after taking the approval of Additional CIT, whereas the section 151 mandates that for issuing notice under section 148 satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal CIT or CIT is required. In support of this argument the ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: i. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors.,179 ITR 603(SC); ii. Dhadda Exports v. ITO, 377 ITR 347 (Raj.); iii. Hindustan Lever ltd. vs. R.B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the solitary issue raised in this appeal is against income from house property determined by the Assessing Officer. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring its income as 'Nil'. The assessee company is not engaged in any business activity during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assessee is having shops i.e. Shop No.10 & 11 situated at Kenwood Apartment CHS Ltd., Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West) and these shops have not been actually let out during the relevant period. Therefore, the annual value would be Municipal Valuation of the property and not the market rent. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to the provisions of section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the area of shop No.10 is 25 sq.mts.(256 sq. Fts.) and the area of shop No.11 is 22.7 sq.mts.(227 sq. Fts.). In support of his contention the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to a letter from Municipal Corporation, Mumbai dated 07/03/2015 (at page 17 of the paper book) givi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was changed by the time assessment order was passed in March, 2015. Therefore, the notice was issued by a different assessing officer and the assessment order was passed by different officer. Both the assessing officers had valid jurisdiction over the assessee at relevant point of time, therefore, the legal objections raised by the assessee are without any merit. 4.1. On merits of the addition, the ld. Departmental Representative supporting the assessment order submitted that the issue may be restored to the Assessing Officer to re-examine area of the shops. The report of the Inspector on the base of which the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment order is not readily available, hence, it will be difficult to place the same on record now. The ld. Departmental Representative further pointed that the shops have been given to the daughter of Director of the assessee company. 5. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined and the judgments on which the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has placed reliance considered. The assessee is in appeal against ex-parte order of CIT(A). The ld. Authorized Representative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional CIT has been included in the definition of Joint Commissioner, therefore, I see no infirmity in the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The case laws on which the ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance does not apply to the facts of the case. Consequently, the ground No.11 raised as additional grounds of appeal is dismissed. 7. The second legal objection of the assessee is that the reasons for reopening have been recorded by an Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction. A perusal of notice issued under section 148 of the Act shows that the same has been issued by ITO, Ward -9(1) (2) and the assessment order has been passed by ITO-Ward 12(1)(3). The ld. Departmental Representative has contended that there was substantial restructuring of the Department during year 2014, hence, the reasons recorded for reopening and the notice under section 148 was issued by the ITO, who was having jurisdiction over the assessee at that point of time. After restructuring, the assessment order was passed by ITO-12(1)(3) who was having jurisdiction over the assessee. Undisputedly, the reasons recorded for reopening, notice u/s 148 and the assessment order can only be passed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst comply with the conditions within the time frame prescribed under the notice. Thus, the decisions relied by the ld. AR of the assessee does not support the case of the assessee. Therefore, I see no merit in ground No.13 raised as additional grounds of appeal by the assessee. Consequently, the same is dismissed. 9. In ground No.14 of the additional grounds of appeal, the assessee has assailed reasons for reopening on the ground that 'the reasons are non reasons in the eyes of law'. In the instant case, as is evident from the assessment order no assessment was made under section 143(3) as the return filed by the assessee was time barred, hence, invalid. Proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act were initiated on the bases of tangible material received by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction for reopening the assessment explicitly mentioning the name of the firm to whom the assessee has given its premises for use. I find no merit in the submissions of ld. Authorised Representative of the Assessee on this legal ground. The case law on which reliance has been placed to support this argument does not apply to the facts of this case and hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been let out, Municipal value would be proper yardstick for determining annual value. The Tribunal after considering the decisions rendered in the case of M.V. Sonawala vs. CIT (supra), Shiela Kaushish vs. CIT (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 concluded as under:- "12. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on several other judicial pronouncements in support of his contention that the Municipal value should be the basis of determining the annual value. We are not making reference to those decisions, since, in our opinion the aforesaid pronouncement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court considers the decisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court which in turn has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue. It is clear from the aforesaid exposition of law that charge under section 22 is not on the market rent; but is on the annual value and in the case of property which is not let out, municipal value would be a proper yardstick for determining the annual value. Decision in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish (supra) mentions standard rent under the Rent Control Act as one of the ya....