Charans Life Devices Pvt Ltd. v. D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad
[Citation -2019-LL-0905-60]

Citation 2019-LL-0905-60
Appellant Name Charans Life Devices Pvt Ltd.
Respondent Name D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad
Court ITAT-Hyderabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/09/2019
Assessment Year 2013-14
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags documentary evidence • business of trading • commercial property • property tax • excess claim • rent paid • residential property
Bot Summary: Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the same and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the properties have been let out for commercial purposes and therefore, the rent was high as compared to the rent of the property given for residential use in the locality. He has drawn my attention to the property tax receipts paid by the assessee for the relevant properties which are placed at pages 38 to 60 of the paper book and particularly page 60 of the paper book wherein the property tax for the property at Flat No.103 has been determined at Rs. 47,693/- w.e.f 01/04/2011. At page 58 59 are the property tax receipts at Rs. 51,854/- and Rs. 42,167/- for Flats No. 101 and 102 respectively and these property tax rates are applicable w.e.f 01/04/2011. I find that the assessee has brought these documents to the notice of the Ld. Revenue Authorities; but neither the A.O. nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered these documents and they compared the rent of the properties which are given for commercial purposes with that of the rents of the residential properties in the locality. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material on record, I find that the assessee had taken three properties on rent from the Directors of the company and has paid rent allegedly as commercial properties, whereas the A.O. has compared the rent of the residential 4 properties in the locality with the rent paid by the assessee. Since the property tax receipts of the flats under consideration are filed before us and also the GHMC Notification dated 01/02/2008 which gives out the information for assessing the property tax of a residential and commercial property and these documents were not considered by the Authorities below, I deem it fit and proper to set-aside the issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to consider these documents and if the properties have been assessed as commercial properties by the Municipal Authorities, then the A.O. shall consider the commercial rent paid during the relevant period in the said locality and decide the issue denovo in accordance with law.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B-SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1272/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Charans Life Devices Vs. D.C.I.T, Pvt Ltd., Flat No.102, Circle-1(2), Zamrudh Residency, Raj Aayakar Bhavan, Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCC 0638 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 13/08/2019 Date of pronouncement: 05/09/2019 ORDER PER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: This is assessee s appeal for Asst. Year 2013-14 against order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad dated 24/4/2017. 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee-company engaged in business of Trading of Heart Pacemakers & Stents, e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30/09/2013 admitting total income of Rs. 26,44,410/- under normal provisions. Initially, return was processed U/s. 143(1) of Act. Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During assessment proceedings, A.O. 2 perused P & L Account and found that under head other expenses assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 33,21,300/- on account of rent to Directors of Company viz., Sri G. Radhacharan Reddy and Smt. G. Nivedita Reddy. From field enquiries, Ld. A.O. found that rental value for flat in Zamrud Residency, Somajiguda (for which assessee has claimed rent) is only Rs. 24,000/- per flat per month as against Rs. 2,46,750/- claimed by assessee for three flats. Documentary evidence in support of this finding was obtained U/s. 131 of Act and placed on record. A.O. further observed that assessee has claimed for three flats viz., Flat No. 101, 102 & 103 of Zamrud Residency, Somajiguda, Hyderabad @ Rs. 89,250/- per month for Flat No.103 and Rs. 1,57,500/- per month for flats 101 and 102 together. Therefore assessee was asked to show-cause as to why excess rent claim should not be disallowed Y/s. 40A(2) of Act. In response, assessee filed explanations but Assessing Officer was not satisfied and accordingly arrived at Rs. 20,97,000/- as excess claim by Directors of company and disallowed same U/s. 40A(2) of Act and brought it to tax. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed same and assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 3 4. Learned Counsel for Assessee submitted that properties have been let out for commercial purposes and therefore, rent was high as compared to rent of property given for residential use in locality. He has drawn my attention to property tax receipts paid by assessee for relevant properties which are placed at pages 38 to 60 of paper book and particularly page 60 of paper book wherein property tax for property at Flat No.103 has been determined at Rs. 47,693/- w.e.f 01/04/2011. Similarly, at page 58 & 59 are property tax receipts at Rs. 51,854/- and Rs. 42,167/- for Flats No. 101 and 102 respectively and these property tax rates are applicable w.e.f 01/04/2011. I find that assessee has brought these documents to notice of Ld. Revenue Authorities; but neither A.O. nor Ld. CIT(A) has considered these documents and they compared rent of properties which are given for commercial purposes with that of rents of residential properties in locality. 5. Ld. DR however submitted that assessee had not produced these documents before Authorities below. 6. Having regard to rival submissions and material on record, I find that assessee had taken three properties on rent from Directors of company and has paid rent allegedly as commercial properties, whereas A.O. has compared rent of residential 4 properties in locality with rent paid by assessee. Since property tax receipts of flats under consideration are filed before us and also GHMC Notification dated 01/02/2008 which gives out information for assessing property tax of residential and commercial property and these documents were not considered by Authorities below, I deem it fit and proper to set-aside issue to file of A.O. with direction to consider these documents and if properties have been assessed as commercial properties by Municipal Authorities, then A.O. shall consider commercial rent paid during relevant period in said locality and decide issue denovo in accordance with law. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 05th September, 2019. Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated:05 th September, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) M/s. Charans Life Devices Pvt Ltd., C/o. A.V. Raghu Ram, P.Vinod & M. Neelima Devi, Advocates, 610, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 1. 2) DCIT, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh Road, Hyderabad-1. 5 3) CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad 4) Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad 5) DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File Charans Life Devices Pvt Ltd. v. D.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad
Report Error