9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi dated 27.06.2017. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the revenue: 1. Whether the ld. CIT (A) was right in rendering addition made in the hands of the appellant infructuous on the basis of similar addition in the hands of Sh. Trilok Chaudhary at CIT(A) level, when the addition has not reached finality and should have been held protective of appeal. 2. Whether the ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing the standard deduction claims of the assessee when the assessee has not been able to substantiate his claims off lease for more than 12 years. 3. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the AKN Group of cases during which the premises of the assessee was also covered. Accordingly, the proceedings u/ s 153A was initiated and a notice u/s 153A off the Act was issued requiring the assessee to furnish true and correct returns of income. In response thereto, the return of income were filed u/s 153A. The assessee has filed the return of income on 17.03. 2010 for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring an income of ₹ 50,41,060 /-. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and served. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the assessee to the daughter-in- law as alleged by the AO, at the time of the marriage of his son namely, Sh. Kamal with Ms. Devika. 9. The ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 07.06.2017 in the case of Sh. Trilok Chand Choudhary in appeal no. 157 /16- 17/112/16 -17 for the assessment year 2009-10 confirmed this addition in the hands of TCC in substantive capacity. 10. The revenue having accepted the confirmation of the amount made in the hands of TCC in substantive capacity but filed appeal before us for deleting addition which is deemed to have been made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee, filing of which is fundamentally erroneous. 11. Since, this addition has been upheld in the case of Sh. Trilok Chand Choudhary, the addition made in the hands of the assessee is rendered infructuous and is accordingly, directed to be deleted. Rental income: 12. While making the impugned addition of ₹ 13,57,351/- on the account of Rental income, the Assessing Officer observed as under: 5. During the assessment proceedings on perusal of the computation of income for the concerned year it was seen that the assessee is showing rental income from property G-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be (deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which such lease is to be granted and the further term or terms for which it can be so extended is not less than twelve years; (ii) The property in question is taken on lease by the lessee for more than 12 years, therefore he shall be treated as the owner of the property. This property was taken on lease by the assessee on 01. 12.1989. Assessee is tenant in this property even today. To substantiate its claim following documents are being filed by the assessee:- (a) Affidavit of the assessee stating that this property is with the assessee on lease for more than 12 years. (b) Copy of the agreement dated 01. 12.1989 showing that the assessee is the lessee of the property for more than 12 years. (iii) No show cause what so ever was given by the Ld. AO for the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the submissions were forwarded to the AO by the ld. CIT (A). The AO furnished the remand report dated 18.01.2017 which is as under: 3. Issue of disallowance of ₹ 13,57,069 /- u/s 24(a) of the IT Act, 1961 3.1 ln this regard, the assessee has submitted that the said property is owned by the assessee for more than 12 years and as per section 27 (iib) read with section 269UA, assesssee will be treated as deemed owner of property under income tax law for the purpose of assessment of income under the head income from house property. Further, the assessee has submitted the self declaration affidavit stating that she said property is with the assessee on lease for more than 12 years. 3.2 The above submission of the assessee was considered but found not acceptable. The assessee has submitted the copy of lease deed dated 16.03.200, as per which the assessee has taken the said property on lease from 01.01.2000 up to 31.03.2008 i.e. for 8 years 3 months. However, as per said lease deed, the assessee have the option to further renew the said lease deed for further 72 months. But, the assessee had failed to provide the copy of further registered renewed lease deed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the option of the tenant. 2. The property in question was taken on rent on 01.12.1989. During the A.Y. 2009- 10, the same was with assessee nearly for 20 years. Therefore, as per provision of section 27 (iii)(b) read with clause (f) of section 269UA, assessee become deemed owner of the property for the purpose of taxing him as the owner of the property. 3.(i) With regard to mention of unregistered rental agreement dated 30.11.2006 referred at para 3.2 of the remand report, it is submitted that this document was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings which is extension and re- negotiation of rent between the parties for which earlier registered rent deed was registered on 30.11.2000. (ii) The document dated 30.11. 2006 is also registered agreement, it is not unregistered. (Copy attached) (iii) This document is an extension of lease dated 01. 12.1989 (registered on 16.03.2000) with change in rentals extended upto 31.03.2014. Therefore, it is an incorrect interpretation of the document and assessee is enjoying the tenancy from 1989 which is more than 20 years and expiring on 31.03.2014 taking agreement to 25 years. Therefore assessee is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant becomes a deemed owner of the property for the purpose of taxation. With regard to mention of unregistered rental agreement dated 30. 11. 2006 referred to at para 3. 2 of the remand report, i t was submitted that this document was furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings and the same is an extension and re- negotiation of rent between the parties for which earlier rent deed was registered on 30. 11. 2000. It was pointed out that the document dated 30. 11. 2006 is also a registered agreement and not unregistered as alleged by the AO. The Ld. AR contended that this document is an extension of lease dated 01. 12. 1989 (registered on 16. 03. 2000), which with change in the rentals was extended upto 31. 03. 2014. Therefore, it is an incorrect interpretation of the document and assessee is enjoying the tenancy from 1989, which is more than 20 years during the assessment year in question and has a validity upto 31. 03. 2014, taking the total duration of the agreement to 25 years. It is also seen that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the ratio of Hon' ble Apex Court' s decision in the case of Raj Dadarkar (81 taxman. com 193) reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
