TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,11,35,086/- being the deemed rental income from income from House Property. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee has suppressed Income from House property by not offering true and correct rental income from all the tenants in the return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting an amount of ₹ 4,11,35,086/- by relying on the decision of the assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 203-04 which is still pending before the Hon ble Tribunal. 3. We find from the records that similar issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case in ITA No. 6701 of 2011 for Assessment Year 2003-04 and ITA Nos. 1190 to 1192 of 2013 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07 by order dated 4.3.2015 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that rental income should be taxed in the year of receipt and rent should be standard rent det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 6,08,66,796/-. After allowing deduction u/s.24(a) @ 30% total income was assessed at ₹ 4,26,06,757/-. We note that, as obsorbed by the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) also that the Assessing Officer wrongly proceeded on the premise that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has retrospectively determined and fixed ₹ 1,42,000/ - as monthly rent for the premises occupied by M/s. Bank of Punjab, and the said order operated as a formula to retrospectively enhance the rents being paid by all the 39 Protected Tenants of Appellant by 19000% i.e. from ₹ 23,769/- per month to ₹ 50,72,233/- per month, i.e. (Rs.6,08,66, 796/ - p.a.). The rest of the building (other than premises on 1st Floor occupied by Bank of Punjab) is occupied by statutory tenants and they were paying statutory rent for the last 25 years. It is also noted that the Assessing Officer unjustifiably enhanced the rental income of the assessee without any documentary evidence/presumptive basis as the presumptive rent was never received/receivable by 4 M/s Seth Properties. the assessee. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the Additional Rent Control Tribunal directed Punjab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption by the Assessing Officer that Bank of Punjab and not Hem Kunt Chemicals was the assessee s tenant without appreciating that as per Sec. 16(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Act no tenant without the previous consent in writing of the land lord has the right to sublet or assign the premises occupied by him. Once eviction orders are passed the relationship of land lord/tenant comes to an end. Thereafter, the land lord can be awarded only compensation by the Court till possession is handed back to the land lord by the tenant. Thus, there was a gross error in the assessment order in increasing the rents of all the Appellant's remaining 39 protected tenants (being ₹ 23,769/- per Month paid to the Appellant by its lawful/ protected tenants) by 19000% i.e. to ₹ 50, 72,233/ - Per Month because these lawful tenants are ,protected tenants who enjoy protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958. Sec 6A of the Delhi Rent Act 1958 has restricted the power of land lords (i.e. 6 M/s Seth Properties. the appellant herein) to increase rents beyond 10% and that too only after every 3 years. 2.2. Section 105 and 107 of the transfer of Transfer of Property Act does not confer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to restrict the rental income in respect of properties other than L-40 to the standard rent determined under the Rent Control Act. As regards the L-40 property (under dispute), provisions of section 25AA and 25B have to be taken into consideration. Section 25AA of the Act provides that where the assessee cannot realize rent from a property let out to a tenant, and subsequently any amount in respect of such rent is realized, such receipt shall be deemed to be chargeable under the head 'income from house property' as income of the previous year in which it is received. Section 25B of the Act makes a special provision for arrears of rent received, and states that where an assessee has received an amount by way of arrears of rent from such property, which is not charged to tax in any previous year, the amount so received shall be deemed to be chargeable under the head 'income from house property' as income of the previous year in which it is received, whether the assessee continues to remain the owner of such property in the previous year in which arrears are received or not. (deduction of 30% would also be allowable against such receipt). In the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
