Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 395 - AT - Income TaxTreatment of rental income "Income from house property" OR "Business income" - Held that:- The assessee was the absolute owner of the property and, therefore, the rent realized from the exploitation of property rights was taxable under the head income from house property. We find ourselves in agreement with ld. CIT(A) that in view of various decisions noted by him in his order, this issue is no more res integra. As far as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1963 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ) is concerned, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case there was composite letting of building fitted with furniture and fixtures for the purpose of paying rent as a hotel. - Decided against assessee. Addition invoking provisions of section 68 - CIT(A) confirmed addition - Held that:- In the assessment order the AO observed that during the year under consideration the company did not show any receipt from its manufacturing activity. Therefore, it is not clear as to how the assessee could ask for advance. The assessee did not file any confirmation letter from the party or its bank statement or income-tax return details, PAN etc. Ld. CIT(A) has observed that on perusal of the relevant alleged account of the said party, it was seen that the amounts had been received by the assessee throughout the year beginning from April 2000 up to February 2001. He has observed that if it was advance against sales then one fails to understand as to why dispatch of goods were not made during the year, more so, when the assessee itself had got its stock de-bonded for domestic sales. We find ourselves in agreement with the findings of ld. CIT(A) on this issue who rightly referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haciendra Farms (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010 (9) TMI 154 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) wherein it has been held that if customer's advance was not proved by assessee by either producing the party or proving with sufficient evidence, then the same can be added u/s 68. The second contention advanced by ld. counsel is that since assessee had offered the amount in AY 2003-04, therefore, this should not be included in AY 2001-02. In this regard we find that the decision relied by ld. counsel were rendered in the context of accrual of income and the same have no application to the present case. We, therefore, confirm the finding of ld. CIT(A).- Decided against assessee.
|