9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has raised the following common grounds in these two appeals except for the variation in the addition: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,11,35,086/- being the deemed rental income from income from House Property. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee has suppressed Income from House property by not offering true and correct rental income from all the tenants in the return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting an amount of Rs. 4,11,35,086/- by relying on the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble High Court, wherein, the rent was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,42,200/- per month, payable by bank of Punjab. However, the assessee claimed Rs. 7,331/- per month, as rent received. The Assessing Officer calculated the deemed rental income from these properties and thus the market value was adopted at Rs. 15,64,201/- for determining the rental income in respect of other units apart from L-40. Fact remains that the entire amount was received in A. Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 for the period commencing from August, 2003, the rent for prior period of four months, i.e. April 2003, May 2003, June 2003 and July 2003 was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,42,200/- only. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer worked out rental income of Hemkunt I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the Additional Rent Control Tribunal directed Punjab National Bank to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- (as mesne profit/occupation charges/damages) in the Court and not Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which bank of Punjab was paying to M/s. Hemkunt Chemicals vide its order dated 05/07/2003. The Hon'ble Delhi Court in its Order dated 29/07/2003 did not mention any amount, or fix/determine any enhanced rent for M/s. Bank of Punjab or the assessee's 39 other tenants as erroneously assumed by the Assessing Officer. The Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Narang Overseas(P)Ltd. v. ACIT 111 ITD 1, held that the amount was received against wrongful possession of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer treats as rental income is in reality compensation for wrongful possession which was deposited only in the subsequent assessment years by Bank of Punjab, and was received by the assessee only in A.Y.2007-2008, and A.Y.2008-09. There is wrong presumption by the Assessing Officer that Bank of Punjab and not Hem Kunt Chemicals was the assessee's tenant without appreciating that as per Sec. 16(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Act no tenant without the previous consent in writing of the land lord has the right to sublet or assign the premises occupied by him. Once eviction orders are passed the relationship of land lord/tenant comes to an end. Thereafter, the land lord can be awarded only compensation by the Court till possession is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been allowed to withdraw moneys deposited under Court order. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the amount determined by the High Court in respect of L-40 which was in dispute, has treated the same as rental for the balance properties as receivable and the difference amount (i. e., difference between rental income as per High Court order and as declared by the appellant) has been brought to tax. For the properties other than L-40, deemed value of rental of Rs. 34,61 ,623 per month has been taken. With regard to L-40 on similar basis (after allowing for cost inflation @ 20%), amount of Rs. 1, 13,600/- per month has been taken as the deemed rental value. It is found, firstly that the order of Delhi High Court was only specific to L-40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received, and states that where an assessee has received an amount by way of arrears of rent from such property, which is not charged to tax in any previous year, the amount so received shall be deemed to be chargeable under the head 'income from house property' as income of the previous year in which it is received, whether the assessee continues to remain the owner of such property in the previous year in which arrears are received or not. (deduction of 30% would also be allowable against such receipt). In the present case since the appellant has not received any amount either by way of unrealized rent or by way of arrears in AY 2003-04, which is evident from the court orders (the amount is stated to have been received after direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
