ITA No.: 6076/Mum/2008, (Assessment Year: 2004-05). Case: Kokan Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Income tax Officer. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA No.: 6076/Mum/2008, (Assessment Year: 2004-05) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi and For Respondents: Shri Kalik Singh |
| Judges | B. Ramakotaiah, Member (A) and Vivek Varma, Member (J) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 143(3), 147 |
| Judgement Date | July 10, 2013 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Vivek Varma, Member (J), (ITAT Mumbai 'A' Bench)
-
The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) 28, Mumbai, dated 16.06.2008, wherein the following grounds were taken:
-
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVIII, Mumbai, ["ld. CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer ("A.O.") whereby the A.O. treated the amount of penalty charges of Rs. 7,985/- and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 53,233/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" as against the claim of the appellant to not to regard them income, much less taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.
2.1 The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O., whereby the A.O. treated the amount of Rs. 15,12,000/- (received from a nominal member of the Appellant society for use of its hall) and Rs. 15,000/- (received as occupancy charges for use of its premises) under the head "Income from House Property" instead of treating the same as exempt income on the principles of mutuality.
2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for.
2.3 Without prejudice to the above, and in the alternative, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in not allowing deduction of Rs. 94,548/- while computing income under the house property income.
2.4 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such disallowance was called for.
The assessee vide application dated 22.10.2010, filed additional grounds of appeal, which are as follows:
-
The Assessing Officer in the present appeal had reopened the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, making various additions / disallowances.
-
At the time of filing the grounds of appeal, inadvertently, the Appellant had not taken this ground challenging the action of the A.O. in reopening the assessment of the Appellant.
-
In the circumstances, the Appellant most respectfully submits that the appellant be allowed to raise the additional ground attached herewith for the following reasons:
(i) The issue raised in these grounds goes to the roots/jurisdiction of the reassessment framed.
(ii) Entertaining these additional grounds will...
To continue reading
Request your trial