9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt. Limited has also admitted that the photographs of the building are correct. Since these documents and photographs go to the root of the dispute, they are necessary to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, these documents are admitted in evidence. Now, since the orders of the taxing authorities found as their basis, the fact that as per lease agreement, there was no building in existence on the land and the erstwhile M/s. Larson and Toubro Limited, now, M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Limited, have admitted of the building existing on the land in question, we remit this matter to the file of the AO to be decided afresh - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.368(Asr)/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2016 - SH. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at the bar that Ground nos. 1 2 are not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Ground nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 to 12 are general. 4. Apropos Ground nos. 3 4, the facts are that the assessee HUF had filed its original return of income for the year under consideration on 21.03.2007 declaring an income of ₹ 9,26,790/-. The AO noticed that in the statement of income filed with the return of income, the assessee HUF had, inter-alia, declared lease rental income of ₹ 14,00,000/- from Larson and Toubro Limited, being lease rent from land and also ₹ 32,400/- from C-54, DDA Friend Colony, New Delhi and interest income of ₹ 23,448/- and from the total lease rental income of ₹ 14,32,400/-, the assessee had claimed ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO had completed the assessment on the basis of wrong information provided by the tenant, M/s. Larson Toubro Limited, as they had submitted that no building was given to them on rent by the assessee and that the lease rentals were being paid in respect of open plot of land. The assessee requested the AO to summon the tenant at their cost to know the true state of affairs. The ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to file a copy of the lease agreement entered into between the assessee and M/s. Larson Toubro Limited, as also the copy of sale deed in respect of the property from which lease rentals were being received. 6. Vide the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO s order, observing as follows: 5.4. From the terms and cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby the department had sought clarification from Lafarge India Pvt. Limited, has stated that whereas the agreement is only for land lease, however, in part of the land, there is a permanent building situated which is used for small storage as per mutual understanding. It has further been stated that the photographs of the building are correct. The ld. counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the fact that this letter of Lafarge India Pvt. Limited (erstwhile Larson Toubro Limited, the tenant of the assessee), has been put to the assessee by the AO vide the aforesaid letter dated 10.11.2015, in the assessment proceedings for the AY 2008-09, noting that as per the reply dated 05.09.2015 (supra) of Lafarge India Pvt. Limited, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant that there does exist a building on the land in question and thus, it is this building alongwith the land, which was leased out to the said tenant by the assessee, though the lease agreement was qua the land. The building is used for cement storage as per mutual understanding. M/s. Lafarge India Pvt. Limited has also admitted that the photographs of the building are correct. 10. In this view of the matter, since these documents and photographs go to the root of the dispute, they are necessary to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, these documents are admitted in evidence. Now, since the orders of the taxing authorities found as their basis, the fact that as per lease agreement, there was no building in existence on the land an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
