9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1) The order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the provisions of sec. 23(1)(a) of the Act which is a deeming provision and the Annual Lettable Value shall be taken to be higher of the Municipal Value and the Fair Rent value, subject to any ceiling set in the Rent Control Act. The AR has not produced any Standard Rent that is fixed by a controller of Rent under an applicable Rent Control Act in force. 3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of AO in the absence of submission of standard rental value as per Rent Control Act. For these and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was more per sft and wanted to apply these rates as against the actual rate per sft being declared by the assessee in the return of income filed for 1h Ast. Year 2015-16. In this connection it is submitted that as per the agreement entered by the assessee long back i.e., more than 10 years back and the said rental income per sft is being accepted by the Income tax Department in the earlier assessment year(s), where assessments were completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act. As the income earned in the form of rents was through agreement only, we request your selves to kindly drop your propose action in this regard. Further, it is submitted that, the rate informed by yourselves may be present rates but, as the assessee company entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culated and assessment was completed. The case of the assessee before the AO is that as per agreement he has received the rent but the AO is not able to establish that the assessee has received more than what is written in the agreement and therefore once there is an agreement and then amount is received. Accordingly, section 23(1)(a) has no application. However, the AO rejected the argument of the assessee and assessment was completed. 5. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by following the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 230/Kol/2012, dated 15/10/2015. 6. Ld.DR strongly supported the order passed by the AO, whereas ld.AR relied on the order of the ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten submissions of appellant and the decision of Assessing Officer. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant had admitted rental receipts based on the Lease Agreement. It is also an undisputed fact that the property is not a vacant premises The Assessing Officer has not brought any material contravening the actual rental received by appellant. In other words, there is no proof that the appellant is in receipt of additional income other than the admitted rental income nor any suppression of rental receipts. The Assessing Officer's power on determining ALV u/s 23(l)(a) is not absolute It is only limited to the issue where the property is vacant and no rentals are shown or admitted by appellant. There is no such scenario in this case Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
