2025 (7) TMI 316 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of income - short fall in the rental income - recovery towards Common Area maintenance Charges - AO treating the amount as rental income and taxing the same under the head income from house property - assessee s contention that they were merely recovery of common area maintenance charges ( CAMC ) paid by the assessee - HELD THAT - Assessee to have explained the short fall in the rental income to be on account of CAM charges recovered by the assessee from its tenant SEPL . The assessee had explained that this recovery of CAM charges was against the CAM charges paid by the assessee and the assessee had netted off the amount recovered against the amount paid and the balance had been debited to the profit loss account of the assessee. The assessee had further explained that the balance amount debited to the P L account had not been claimed as deduction against the income from house property under which the rental income was returned by the assessee. CIT(A) has not found any infirmity in the explanation of the assessee. And as noted above all documentary evidences with regard to the explanation of the assessee was also furnished to the CIT(A). Therefore it is evidently clear that the assessee had sufficiently explained the difference in the rental income as per the TDS certificate and that disclosed in the return income duly supported with evidences and there was no case for making any addition to the income of the assessee on this count. The addition therefore is directed to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the amount of Rs. 17,08,908/- recovered by the assessee towards Common Area Maintenance Charges ("CAMC") from the tenant is taxable as income from house property under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(b) Whether the recovery of CAMC by the assessee constitutes income or is merely reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee, and thus not liable to tax.

(c) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] were justified in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 17,08,908/- towards CAMC paid by the assessee and recovered from the tenant.

(d) Whether the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) & (b): Taxability of CAMC recovery as income from house property

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under the Income Tax Act, income from house property is taxable under the head "Income from House Property." Normally, rent received or receivable from tenants is taxable under this head. However, amounts recovered as reimbursement of expenses incurred by the owner, such as CAMC, are generally not treated as income but as recoveries of expenditure, provided proper evidence is furnished.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO made an addition of Rs. 17,08,908/- to the assessee's income on the ground that there was a shortfall in rental income as per the TDS return and the income tax return (ITR). The AO contended that this shortfall represented income from house property and rejected the assessee's explanation that the amount was recovery of CAMC paid by the assessee. The AO's conclusion was based on the absence of evidence in the form of invoices raised by the tenant, M/s Sleek Electrics Pvt. Ltd. ("SEPL"), for the CAMC amount claimed.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, agreeing that no evidence was furnished to substantiate the CAMC claim and therefore confirmed the addition.

The assessee's counsel before the Tribunal clarified that the CAMC of Rs. 34,29,816/- was paid by the assessee to the original owner of the property (Star Line Leasings Limited), not to SEPL, and that the amount of Rs. 17,08,908/- was recovered from SEPL as reimbursement for the CAMC paid. The assessee had furnished invoices from Star Line Leasings Limited evidencing payment of CAMC and invoices raised on SEPL for recovery of CAMC. The Tribunal found that both sets of documentary evidence were submitted to the CIT(A) but were either not considered or misunderstood.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the invoices from Star Line Leasings Limited showing monthly CAMC charges paid by the assessee, and separate invoices raised by the assessee on SEPL for recovery of CAMC. The evidence demonstrated that the amount recovered from SEPL was reimbursement of expenses and not rental income.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the recovery of CAMC charges is not income but a reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee. Since the assessee had paid the CAMC charges to the original owner and recovered a proportionate amount from the tenant, the amount recovered cannot be treated as income from house property.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument rested on the absence of evidence of payment of CAMC charges and invoices from SEPL. The Tribunal rejected this argument as factually incorrect, noting that the assessee had never claimed to have paid CAMC to SEPL but to the original owner, and had furnished all relevant invoices. The Revenue was unable to controvert the documentary evidence presented.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 17,08,908/- to the income of the assessee was unjustified and directed its deletion. The amount recovered as CAMC was not taxable income but reimbursement of expenses.

Issue (c): Deduction of CAMC paid and recovered

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income are generally allowable as deductions under the Income Tax Act. When an amount is recovered from a tenant as reimbursement of expenses, the net expense after recovery is deductible.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee had debited the balance CAMC amount (Rs. 17,08,908/-) to its profit and loss account and had not claimed this amount as a deduction against income from house property. The AO disallowed this treatment by treating the recovered amount as income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's accounting treatment was correct and consistent with the nature of the transactions.

Key evidence and findings: The invoices and accounting entries showed that the assessee had paid total CAMC charges of Rs. 34,29,816/-, recovered Rs. 17,08,908/- from SEPL, and debited the balance to expenses. This demonstrated proper matching of income and expenditure.

Application of law to facts: Since the recovered amount was not income, the net CAMC expense debited to the profit and loss account was allowable. The AO's disallowance was based on an incorrect premise of taxability of the recovered amount.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not present substantive arguments on the deductibility issue beyond the incorrect classification of the recovered amount as income.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of net CAMC expenses and that the AO erred in disallowing the same.

Issue (d): Initiation of penalty under section 270A

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 270A of the Income Tax Act provides for penalty in cases of under-reporting or misreporting of income. Penalty can be levied only if there is a clear case of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not specifically elaborate on the penalty issue in the order. However, given that the addition to income was deleted on merits due to the assessee's valid explanation and documentary evidence, the basis for penalty under section 270A would not stand.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee had furnished all relevant evidence and had not concealed any particulars of income.

Application of law to facts: Since the addition was deleted, the penalty based on the same addition lacked justification.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue supported the penalty but failed to rebut the assessee's factual explanation and documentary proof.

Conclusions: By necessary implication, the penalty under section 270A was not sustained.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The basis with the ld.CIT(A) for confirming the addition of Rs. 17,08,908/-, on account of shortfall in rental income, as per the TDS return and that disclosed in the ITR of the assessee, is completely flawed."

"The assessee had sufficiently explained the difference in the rental income as per the TDS certificate and that disclosed in the return income, duly supported with evidences and there was no case for making any addition to the income of the assessee on this count."

"The recovery of CAMC charges is not income but a reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee."

"The addition, therefore, made of Rs. 17,08,908/- is directed to be deleted."

The Tribunal established the core principle that reimbursement of expenses such as CAMC recovered from tenants, when properly evidenced and accounted for, does not constitute income from house property and is not taxable. The burden on the Revenue to disprove the assessee's explanation and evidence was not met. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of appreciating the factual matrix and documentary evidence before making additions to income.

On the penalty issue, the Tribunal's deletion of the addition effectively negated the basis for penalty under section 270A.