TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessee on 29.03.2018 wherein the assessee was inter alia asked to file the return of income. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee filed the return of income on 22.10.2018 declaring Nil taxable income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and consequently, the assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2018 and the total income was determined at Rs. 20,77,592/- on account of deemed rental income and after adjusting the loss of Rs. 8,27,977/- , the total taxable income was determined at Rs. 12,49,610/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 28.06.2019 in Appeal No.230/18-19 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1) The order passed by AO and confirmed by CIT[A] are bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2) The reopening by AO and further assessment was not in line with apex court , therefore, assessment be annulled. 3) The addition by AO and confirmation by CIT[A] are incorrect and against the provision of section 22/23(1)(a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of the report of ADIT (Inv) without making any independent inquiry. He submitted that the AO was not having any tangible material on the basis of which he could have concluded that at the relevant point of time, the properties were owned by the assessee or by some other person. He thereafter submitted that there is no live link that the two properties for which deemed rental income is considered as escaped income was in fact actually owned by the assessee or not. He submitted that nothing has been brought on record by the AO to demonstrate that the properties at Ludhiana Mall and house at Rohini, Delhi were owned by the assessee or not. He further submitted that even during the assessment proceedings, the AO could not bring any evidence to demonstrate that the aforesaid properties were owned by the Assessee. 7. He thereafter submitted that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessments cannot be said to be valid reasons as they were no wrong facts as the addition with respect to the deemed rental income made for two shops in the Mall at Ludhiana was not owned by the Assessee but was owned by the firm, S. K. Interiors, in which the assessee was one of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 4 lac has been made u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act, he submitted that the aforesaid property did not belong to the assessee but belonged to his wife, Mrs. Vinod Kohli and the said property was sold by her on 31st March 2008 i.e. prior to the relevant assessment year. He further submitted that during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings, assessee had brought the aforesaid facts before the authorities but the same was ignored by the concerned authorities. 11. With respect to the property at Rajpur Residency, Dehradun, in respect of which the addition of Rs. 40,000/- on account of rental income was made, he submitted that the aforesaid property was jointly owned by the assessee with his wife, Vinod Kohli and during the relevant assessment year, it could not be let out and had remained vacant. He submitted that it could be let out for Rs. 21,000/- in F.Y. 2013-14. He submitted that the aforesaid submissions were made before the AO and CIT(A), but the same were ignored by them and addition was made. In support of his aforesaid contentions, he pointed to the relevant papers placed in the paper book. 12. Ld. AR therefore submitted that the reassessment being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not even an allegation that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts which lead to any income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment. Further, even on the reading of the reasons recorded, it cannot be said that it suggests about any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment. 17. The reading of the reasons placed by the assessee in the paper book reveals that the reopening has been initiated for 2 reasons. The first allegation of the AO is that he had received information from ADIT (Inv.) that the assessee owns 8 properties listed in the reasons recorded out of which from the 4 properties (namely, property at Rajapur Residency, Dehradun, 2 properties at Rohini Delhi and two shops in Mall in Ludhiana) no deemed rental income has been declared by the assessee. The second allegation is that the assessee had entered into commodity transactions aggregating to Rs. 125.91 lacs and its source and income was required to be checked. 18. As far as the first allegation, namely not disclosing the deemed rental income from the 4 properties is concerned, I find that before me, Ld.....