IN THE ITAT AGRA BENCH
Laxman Dass Keshwani
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle
IT APPEAL NOS. 99 TO 110 & 112, 336, 338, 343 TO 348, 351, 353, 354 TO 358, 370, 372, 373 TO 377 (AGRA) OF 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09]
DECEMBER 28, 2012
ORDER
1. These are appeals filed by seven different assessees against different orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Agra.
2. Grounds raised in all these appeals are based on identical set of facts, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are decided by this common order.
3. The ld. Representatives of the parties submitted that the facts of these appeals lead in case of Laxman Dass Keshwani, ITA No.351/Agr/2012 and accordingly argued by both the sides on the basis of facts noted in that case. For knowing the exact grounds of appeal, we reproduce the grounds of appeal in ITA No.351/Agr/2012 s under :-
“1. (i) Because the proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act is wrong and illegal as no paper, document or any adverse material relating to the relevant year warranting addition made by the Assessing Officer was found during search. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer as regards initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act considering the facts of the case and the legal position the assessment is liable to be annulled. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the appellant’s ground.
(ii) Because since no incriminating material was found during the course of search for warranting additions made by the Assessing Officer, the additions made in the relevant previous year are wrong, illegal and deserves to be deleted.
2. (i) Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the addition of Rs. 52,174/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 23(4) of the Act.
(ii) Because considering the facts of the case that the property could not be let out and no rent was received or receivable, the notional rent cannot be assessed, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition instead of deleting the same.
3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the addition of Rs. 2000/- out of addition of Rs.44,857/- made by the Assessing Officer for so called low house hold withdrawals.
4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the Assessing Officer’s action as regards charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
4. At the time of hearing the ld Representatives of the parties submitted that ground nos. 1(i) and 4 & 5 are not pressed. He further submitted that the effective common grounds are only two grounds namely calculation of notional rent and addition on account of household expenses. Ground no. 1(ii) is supporting ground to both the main grounds of appeal.
5. The brief facts of the case are that a search under section 132 was carried out on 30.01.2008. During the assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed that the assessee was having several house properties, details of property noted by the A.O. in his order is as under :- (Page nos.2 & 3)
