9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied. The assessee, as discussed, is not the owner of the property in question. Too, the property is commercial in nature. Therefore, the provisions of section 22 of the Act are not at all applicable. Hence, the addition made as income from house property is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order under appeal is reversed and the addition is deleted. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t months of ₹ 18,00,000 (225,000*8) and not all the Rent Paid for nine months ₹ 20,25,000 (225000 *9) as shown in 26AS, Lying the year under consideration as the Rent paid was disputed & violated the Clauses of Lease Deed that an increment of 10% in Rent will be applicable after every 3 years As the Rent was not enhanced the clause was violated hence the disputed amount and TDS on it were not accepted as Income and accordingly not shown in Return for the year. 5. Because the disallowance & addition of (14,17,500 - 7,38,000) ₹ 6,79,500/- as Taxable Income was wrong and highly unjustified. 6. Because the assessment Order on facts & law was not legally sustainable. 2. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee states ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regd. HO at IInd Floor, 9009/11, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, Delhi. A proof in this regard is enclosed from the NOIDA authority sending a Demand Proof of Annual Fees in its name along with Possession Certificate, thereby confirming the ownership of the Property by M/s Bhandari Fibertech Pvt. Ltd." 5. The A.O observed that: "Possession certificate of NOIDA Authority shows possession of the property w.e.f. dated 13/10/1995 which is very old. There is no proof regarding present owner of the property. It may be that the property had been transferred for which rent agreement has been made on 30/8/2008 with Safexpress Pvt. Ltd." 6. On the above basis, the A.O rejected the assessee's claim for treating the rental income as income fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served by the authorities bellow, no evidence was produced by the assessee regarding the ownership of the property in question being of someone else, and not of the assessee. 11. In his written submissions (reproduced at pages 2 to 4, the relevant portion at page 3, of the impunged order), the assessee submitted as follows before the ld. CIT(A): "The assessee is enclosing the documentary evidence (outstanding demand on property as on 31/12/2015) to prove that the property is still in the name of Bhandari Fibre Tech, Noida. This is with reference to point No.6 & 7 of page 3 & 4 of the order of the A.O." 12. Thus, the above Demand Notice was before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in disregard/oblivion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
