Smt. Jothi Narayanan Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act rightly sustained as no supporting documents submitted.
Facts- The assessee is a Director of Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and filed her original return of income u/s. 139(4) of the Act on 27.09.2012 for the relevant assessment year 2012-13.A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted on the business premises and residence of Directors of Annai Builders Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., on 04.10.2017. The AO framed assessment u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3) in the case of assessee making assessment of various additions.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO and partly allowed some of the issues. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
Conclusion- Held that the assessee only made submission that the assessee has expended the money and this claim is made by assessee in the return filed u/s.153(3A) of the Act. But on query from the Bench, the ld.counsel could not state any evidence is filed even now before us in regard to claim of helper allowance paid to them. The ld.counsel stated that only few self-made sample copies of vouchers are available. After hearing ld.counsel for the assessee and ld. CIT-DR, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the action of AO, we uphold the same.
Held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has carried out the exercise of ascertainingthe market value of rent by adopting a scientific method or by going through the municipal Since the assessee suo-motto quantified deemed rental income of this house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal by the assessee in ITA No.950/CHNY/2022 is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2022-23/ 1045434885(1) dated 13.09.2022. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai for the assessment year 2012-13 u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 15.0 1.2022.
2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to additional grounds raised i.e., Ground Nos.1A & 2, which read as under:-
1A. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the Appellant found from the persons searched.
2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Order dated 15.01.2022 made u/s. 1 53C r.w. s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the AO was without jurisdiction, as the provisions of section 153C(1) of the Act, 1961 did not apply to the Assessment year, in question, in facts and the circumstances of the case and in law.
3. The ld.counsel for the assessee filed petition under Rule 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional grounds and adjudication of the same for the reason that the grounds raised are purely legal and jurisdictional grounds and facts are very much available on the record of the AO. The Tribunal has not to go into new facts. The ld.counsel drew our attention to details that the assessment in this case for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 was unabated and there is no incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on the assessee on 04.10.2017. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to original return of income filed on 27.09.2017 and no action whatsoever is pending with the Department as on the date of search i.e. 04.10.2017. Hence, in the absence of any incriminating material these grounds are to be admitted and adjudicated.
4. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the decision of National Thermal Power Corporation is against assessee and in favour of Revenue and he read out relevant para 4, 5 & 6 of the judgment but could not make out assessee’s case falls under any of the condition that the facts are not available on record or the issue is not as regards to jurisdiction assumption by AO in the absence of any incriminating material.
5. We have noted the arguments of both the sides and seen the details which are as under:-
