TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent does not bear the signature of any witnesses although the agreement says that it was signed in the presence of the witnesses. We, therefore, hold that the explanation offered by the assessee is not born out of records. The so called sketches are not signed by the notary. These documents in our opinion are only self serving. The letter addressed to the Excise Superintendent also can be termed as self serving, since the copy of letter which is placed at page 63 of the paper book, does not bear the seal of the Excise Department where as the previous letter dated 30.10.2006 addressed to the excise department bears the seal of the department alongwith the designation of the person who has received it. Therefore, it is only a piece of paper m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.2008 between the assessee and M/s Intertec Building Products (P) Ltd. @ 5,00,000/- p.m. for a period of 18 months from 01.02.2008 to 31.07.2009. (2) Dated 15.07.2009 between the assessee and M/s Intertec Building Products (P) Ltd. @1,00,000/- p.m. for a period of 8 months from 01.08.2009 to 31.03.2010. 4. The AO on examination of both the lease agreements noted that the leased out premises is same and identical. However, the rent has been remarkably low for the last eight months of the financial year. On being questioned by the AO to explain as to why the rental income for the entire year shall not be computed @ ₹ 5 lacs per month, the assessee filed the copies of the lease deed dated 01.02.2008 and 15.07.2009 respectively alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the addition of ₹ 22,40,000/- to the total income of the assessee on account of income from house property. The AO has held that the assessee has received rent @₹ 5,00,000/- per month. He has placed reliance on the following part of rent agreements : "WHEREAS the LESSEE has approached The LESSOR for the lease of factory shed, office premises at their factory at Plot No. 28A. Udyog Vihar. Greater No Ida. " 5.3.2 On the other hand the assessee has relied on the sketch showing the area given on rent. 5.3.3 Sketch as referred by the appellant is only the attachment to the agreement, it has been clearly mentioned in both the agreements that factory shed and office premises has been letout. The appellant has not filed any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have vacated certain portion of the premises at Udyog Vihar, Noida. He submitted that the products of the assessee are excisable. Referring to page-41 of the lease deed dated 15.07.2009, copy of which is placed at page 41 to 43 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the bench to the sketch of the site plan and submitted that assessee has taken on rent only the administrative block whereas in the original site plan the assessee had taken both the factory shed as well as the administrative block. 9. Referring to the ledger account of the lessesee, copy of which placed at paper book pages 67 and 68, he drew the attention of the bench to the monthly rent credited which has gone down from ₹ 5,51,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on the ground that the rental income of the assessee from the leased out premises should be taken @ ₹ 5 lacs per month for the whole year as against the rental income taken by assessee @ 5 lacs for four months and ₹ 1 lacs per month for 8 months. While doing so the AO noted from the two agreements that the various clauses of both the agreements are same except the period of lease and the rental income. According to the AO there is no such annexure forming part of each agreement for the area of the premises marked for rental. We find the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the original lease agreement wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|