TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee who stated that the property could not be let out due to poor access and for want of regularisation. The ld. AO rejected the said explanation holding that the properties on MG Road are always in demand and on the basis of the fact that the family members of the assessee had rented out even adjacent properties owned by them at the said location. He, however, allowed a grace period of a few months to the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO estimated the ALV of the property at Rs.90,00,000/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs.1,01,00,000 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 based upon the rent of the adjacent property owned by the son of the assessee. Referring to the provisions of section 23(1)(c), ld. AO held that since the property was not let out at any time during the period, the vacancy allowance was not available to the assessee. 5. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee that due to circumstances beyond the control, the property could not be put on rent. In this regard, the assessee also furnished an affidavit which was dismissed as a self serving statement. The ld.CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the order of the AO. 6. Again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer has mentioned of the fact that assessee failed to substantiate his claim with any document to prove that the premises was one of the premises which was impacted with metro work. Thus, there is an apparent factual error in considering the affidavit of assessee in right prospective. 6. Then next the Assessee had submitted before the Tax Authorities the copy of minutes of a meeting of a delegation of MG Road Building Owners Association with Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT, Delhi. The same at page no. 3 of the paper book shows that at serial no. 16. there is name of Mr. Ashok Choudhary who is father of present assessee Kamal Kumar. The minutes of meeting dated 28.11.2011 indicate that some of the properties were partly demolished in the area and the issue was that building owners claimed that as per the 1963 Resolution of the Corporation, it was not mandatory to have prior sanction of building plans for constructions done within Lal Dora. It is not disputed that the property of assessee is situated in the Lal Dora and as per affidavit it is part of Khasra no. 356 and 357 Sultanpur, M.G.Road, New Delhi. The father of assessee was also part of the delegation. The minutes dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by evidence, so disbelieved the affidavit. At the same time, once the affidavit was admitted by way of additional evidence and the remand report on its factual aspects was called it cannot be brushed aside by calling it a selfserving document unless the same was factually controverted by evidence or on oath statement on the part of revenue. 6.3 Thus, the bench is of the considered opinion that there was sufficient material before the ld. Tax Authorities which established that there was a genuine dispute in the locality where the commercial building of assessee was situated and that dispute was of such nature that no prudent person could be expected to have taken the disputed building on rent. The fact that this meeting was called on 28.11.2011 where a consensus was reached between the authorities and owners of building indicate that during the relevant financial year the property was actually not available in the hands of assessee to be let out. Admittedly it was let out in next FY. 7. On the basis of above discussion the Bench is of considered opinion that the reliance of the ld. Tax Authorities on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vivek Jain vs. ACIT (supra) is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." 10. We find that facts in the present case before us are identical. It is not the case that there is difference in facts. Hence, respectfully following the precedent from ITAT, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. For AY 2014-15, there is one more issue which reads as under:- "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below has erred in confirming addition of Rs.50,70,190/- on account of jewellery found in premises of the assesse which was duly explained. The action of the authorities below is wrong, illegal, misconceived, unjustified and bad at law therefore it should be quashed." 12. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain jewellery were found to be belonging to the assessee. The assessee could not give the source of investment. The bills which were shown in support of the purchase did not mention the mode of payment. The AO proceeded to confirm the addition by observing as under:- "5. During the search & seizure operation jewellary amounting Rs.4,36,16,381/- was found from the premise of the assessee out of which jewellary amounting to Rs.65,70,1....