Tajit Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs Assessee

I .T.A . N o. 22 72 / KOL ./ 20 1 4 As ses sm e nt y e ar : 20 06 - 20 0 7

Page 1 of 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA 'SM C' BENCH, KOLKATA

Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial M ember

I.T .A. No . 227 2 /KOL/ 2 01 4 Assess ment year : 2006 -2 00 7

Ta jit Kuma r Sa ha,.. ...................................... ............... .........Ap p ella nt CA /6, Deshba nd hu Na ga r, Ba gu ia ti, Kol ka ta -700 059 [PA N : A KTPS 7743 P]

-Vs.-

Income Ta x Offic er,........ .............................. ........ ...................Resp ond e nt Wa rd -55(3), Kolka ta , 54/1, Rafi A h med Kid wa i Road , Kol ka ta -700 016

Appeara nces by : Shri Dil ip Kum ar Saha, F. C. A., f or the as s essee Shri Rajesh Ku mar, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for th e Depart ment

Dat e of concluding t he hearin g : Feb ruary 26, 2015 Dat e of pr onouncing th e order : Feb ruary 26, 2015

Per Ge orge M athan:

This is an app eal filed by the assess ee a gain st th e order of ld. Commissioner of In co me Tax ( Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata in Appeal No. 343/CIT(A)-XXXVI /Kol/ITO,Wd-55(3)/Kol./2011 -12 dated 30.09.2 014 for the a sse ss ment year 2006-07.

2. Sh ri Dilip Ku mar S aha, F .C.A., rep re sent ed on behalf of the a sse ss ee and Shri Rajesh Kumar, JCIT, Sr. D.R. rep resented on behalf of the Revenue.

3. At the ti m e of hearin g, it was submitt ed b y the ld. A.R. th at the as se sse e i s a p a rtner of three p a rtnership fi rms situat ed in dif fe ren t locations. It wa s the submi ss ion that the ass ess ee receiv ed in te rest on I .T.A . N o. 22 72 / KOL ./ 20 1 4 As ses sm e nt y e ar : 20 06 - 20 0 7

Page 2 of 3

capital and sal ary fro m the three diff eren t fi rms. It was also submitted that th e ass essee is a dealer of medicine. It was the submi ss ion that the as se sse e had taken on rent a comme rci al spac e bein g Office room on the ground floor of a three- stori ed building situ ated at Ra ghunathp ur, Post Office- Jyang ra, Police Stat ion-Rajarh at, North 24-Parganas me asu rin g abo ut 300 sq.ft. for his business pu rpo ses. Ld. A.R. placed before me th e co py of the Leave and Lic ence A gree ment fo r twenty-four months dat ed 01.01.2005. It was the submi ssion th at the A ssessin g Officer on the ground that on v erific ation the premi ses of th e as se sse e could n ot be found as also on the g roun d that fo r ea rning in come from p artner's sal ary and inte rest on c apital, no exp ense s was requi red, he dis allowed th e expendi ture clai m ed towa rds ren t of th e said co mme rcial pro p erty. It was the sub mi ssion tha t the ld. CIT(Appe al s) had co nfi rmed th e ord er o f th e Assessing Offi ce r. It was th e submission that at the ou tset, the verification h ad been d one at the sta ge of the ld. CIT (Ap peals ) which was in 2012, whereas the premis es h ad been taken on lease in January, 2005 for t wenty-fo ur months. It was th e fu rther submi s sion that the a sse ss ee being a p art ner in th ree fi rms and d ealin g in m edicine, the a sse ss ee requi red the p remi ses fo r his busines s purposes which ha s gen erated hi m net p rofit as p er Profit & Loss A /c. of Rs.4,03,638/-. It was the submission that the addition mad e by the Assessin g Offic er and as co nfirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) may be dele ted.

4. In reply , ld. Sr. D.R. vehemently su pported th e ord er o f th e Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(Appe als).

5. I hav e consid e red the rival submis sio ns. A pe rus al of the L ease Deed sh ows that the lease wa s ent ere d into on 0 1.01.2005 for twen ty- four months. The premis es t aken b y the as se ssee i s a co m merci al premi ses and th e agreemen t al so sp ecific ally says that th e spac e i s me asurin g about 300 sq. ft. It is an Offi ce room and the asses see was to grant ed pe rmis sion for usin g the p remi ses only for commercial purpose s.

I .T.A . N o. 22 72 / KOL ./ 20 1 4 As ses sm e nt y e ar : 20 06 - 20 0 7

Page 3 of 3

This a greemen t has not be en sho wn to be f alse. Ad mitt edly the a ssessee is d oing the busines s of dealin g in medicine a s is eviden t f rom the as se ssm ent o rd er. The assessee h as sh o wn net p rofit o f more than R s.4 lakhs. In these circu mstances, I am of the view that the as ses see is entitled to claim the expen ses rep res enting the rent of the com merci al premi ses t ak en on rent by the ass essee. In th ese ci rcu mstan ces, the Assessing O ffic er is di rected to allo w the clai m of rent as made by the as se sse e.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the ass essee is allowed.

Orde r p ronounced in th e open Co urt on 26 t h Feb rua ry, 2015.

Sd/-

George Mathan (Judicial M embe r)

Kolkata, th e 26 t h day of Feb ruary , 2015

Co pies to : (1) Ta jit Kuma r Sa ha, CA /6, Deshba nd hu Na ga r, Ba gu ia ti, Kol ka ta -700 059

(2) Income Ta x Office r, Wa rd -55(3), Kolka ta , 54/1, Rafi A h med Kid wa i Road , Kol ka ta -700 016

(3) Comm iss ioner of Income-tax (Appeal s) (4) Com mis sioner of Incom e Tax (5) The Depar tmental R epr es entative (6) Guard Fil e By order

Assistant Registrar Income Tax App ellate Tribunal Kolkata Ben ch es, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.