2019 (5) TMI 2033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g No. 239/Del/2017 on the averments that ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by Revenue in its appeal were not adjudicated upon y the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2017 recalled its order dated 01.11.2016 for adjudication of Ground Nos. 2 & 3 of this appeal. It is how this appeal again came up for hearing before us for the limited purpose to adjudicate upon ground Nos. 2 & 3 of this appeal. These grounds of appeal read as under : "2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.6,55,201/- on account of rental income in respect of house property without justifiable reason and without considering the reasoning given ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition observing that the property in question was hired by the assessee and was subleased to his HUF; that the assessee had charged an amount of Rs.5,388/- to the P&L account as annual rent paid in respect of this property which was hired by him eight years back; that the Assessing Officer applied the market rate only in respect of receipts of rent by the assessee and not in respect of payments made for hiring of the property by assessee; and that if the market rate is applied to both the sides of transactions, i.e., payment of rent and receipt of rent, there would be no net addition respect of rental receipts. 3. The ld. DR, relying upon the assessment order, submitted that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was again placed on record during the course of the present proceedings. The appellant had charged an amount of Rs. 5,388/- to the P & L account as annual rent paid in respect of the property which was hired by him eight years back. Thus effectively in respect of this property rental payment had been claimed @ Rs. 450/- per month and rental receipts had been shown @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The AO applied market rate only in respect of receipts of rent by the appellant and not in respect of payment for hiring of the property by him. Therefore, as the property was hired by the appellant and was in turn sub-leased to his HUF, applying market rate to both sides of the transaction i.e. payment of rent and receipt of rent there will be no net add....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee. 8. The ld. AR on the other hand relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before the first appellate authority. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the material on record and we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this score. It is notable that all the documentary evidences, such as death certificate of assessee's parent, their "will" etc. were produced before the Assessing Officer regarding inheritance of movable and immovable property. The contention of the assessee has been that the inherited property was personal asset of the assessee and it was not shown in the balance sheet which was prepared in respect of the proprietary business of the assessee....