DevranjanMittra vs Assessment Unit

“4.6 Conclusion drawn

With the discussion held in preceding paras, it is concluded that the proposed variation is held to be indisputable. Variation on account of additional rent receipts under the head House Property: Accordingly, the net income from the House property as derived in para 2.4 of the SCN comes at Rs.49,65,213/- out of which the assessee has shown income under the head house property to the extent of Rs.22,25,066/- only. Therefore, the balance amounting to Rs.49,65,213/- minus Rs.22,25,066/- i.e. Rs.27,40,147/- is treated as additional income under the head House Property and the same is added to the total income of the assessee during the year in question relevant to A.Y.-2023-24. Penalty proceeding u/s. 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act is initiated separately on account of under-reporting of income which is in consequence mis-reported thereof.”

“2.1

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellant filed appeal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “

(1)

THAT the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer, in the Appellant’s case, being ab initio void and ultra vires, without jurisdiction, as envisaged by law, was against all cannons of law, justice and equity and the skipping over the submissions made by the appellant in this behalf is without any legal sanction or justification.

(2)

THAT the above assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer has been passed without appreciating the legal and factual position of the case in its true and proper perspective.

(3)

THAT having regard to the acceptance of the status of the Hindu Undivided Family of D.r A P Mittra and Brothers since 1936-37, on the death of Late Dr. I T Mittra in 1935, his three sons voluntarily blended and had thrown the properties acquired on the death of their father in common stock both in term of possession and ownership and there was nothing under DayaBhaga School of Law by which they could be prevented from forming joint family, in as much as the finding of the learned Assessing Officer, is based on a misconception of law and mis appreciation of the legal position as well as against the findings already determined in favour of the appellant.

(4)

THAT the learned Assessing Officer failed to visualize that after the partition of the erstwhile Hindu Undivided Family of Dr. A P Mittra and Brothers, there came in to existence two separate Hindu Undivided Families, namely Dr. A P Mittra and Sons and Shri K P Mittra (HUF). The properties that Shri K P Mittra received on partition became the properties of the smaller Hindu Undivided Family of Shri K P Mittra (HUF). Shri K P Mittra was the Karta of the HUF constituted by himself and his family members. Separate income tax and wealth tax assessments of the aforesaid Hindu Undivided Families, were made thereafter.

(5)

THAT the learned Assessing Officer has miserably failed to weigh the evidence in its proper perspective and has otherwise misconstrued evidence in as much as in a final decree of partition passed in Suit No. 259 of 1970, by Hon’ble Justice B CMishra in the High Court of Delhi, by virtue of which Shri DevranjanMittra, Shri K P Mittra and Shrimati Kamala Mittra, were declared to be one third share each of the Hindu Undivided family of Shri K P Mittra (HUF).

(6)

THAT an order was passed under section 171(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30th March, 1974, by the Income Tax Officer, District III (28), New Delhi, in the case of Shri K P Mittra (HUF), in which the claim for partition was duly accepted. As per an assessment order dated 30th March, 1974, passed under section 143 (3) of the Act, for the assessment year 1971- 72, wherein the claim for partition was also accepted, have been disregarded without any rhyme or reason.

(7)

THAT in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the remarks given, reasons advanced and inferences drawn by the learned Assessing Officer, there was no warrant at all in including income of Rs. 27,40,147/-, belonging to Shri DevranjanMittra (HUF), when there was no or new material for holding otherwise.

(8)

THAT the assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer, in the Appellants case is against the legal provisions as well as contrary to the factual aspects of the case, which has been wholly misunderstood by him, while resorting to a huge addition of Rs. 27,40,147/-, from additional income from house property, when the said income wholly and exclusively belonged to Shri DevRanjanMittra (HUF), a regular income tax assessee, in respect of Flat No. 405 and 412 and Flat No. 204, 205 and Loft No. 1, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, which were let out, in-asmuch as his findings are based on mere surmises, conjectures and irrelevant consideration.

(9)

THAT the learned Assessing Officer, failed to appreciate that the alleged additional income from property of Rs. 27,40,147/-, belonged to Shri DevRanjanMittra (HUF), who is a separate and distinct legal entity, which filed its return of income and has been duly assessed, in as much as the said addition to the total income is arbitrary, wholly uncalled for and tantamount to double taxation of the same income and as such is liable to be deleted.

(10)

The learned Assessing Officer, has grossly erred in considering the claim of House Tax at Rs. 11,82,830/-, as against aggregate payments of Rs. 46,33,650/-, made towards House Tax.

(11)

THAT the learned Assessing Officer, grossly erred in restricting the claim of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 198,44,892/-, to only Rs. 48,258/-, without any rhyme or reason.

(12)

THAT relief as per grounds of appeal may be allowed and the appellant be permitted to add, amend, delete or substitute any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”