TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment of rent to the 7 persons as recorded in the assessment order - HELD THAT:- No evidence of ownership of the property by these persons was furnished. The assessee had also failed to furnish the copies of lease a agreements. In these circumstances, the genuineness of the claim of deduction pertaining to rent expenditure remained unverified. Even during the course of appellate proceedings, no evidence of ownership of property by the 7 persons to whom the rent was claimed to have been paid was furnished. Out of the 3 persons in whose names the electricity bills were filed only one person figured in the list of 7 persons to whom the rent paid. In the case of remaining 2 persons there was no rent payment. The rent agreement filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Assessee e-filed his return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring income of ₹ 16,62,690/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was issued on 28.8.2015. The notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was also sent on e-mail and thereafter notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued on 6.7.2016, 6.9.2016, 20.9.2016, 14.1.2016 and 14.12.2016, in response to the notice, the AR of the assessee filed necessary information and details. The written submissions filed alongwith necessary documents and explanations. During the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered deed. Factory rent has been paid to the following individuals and payment to each person is below the threshold limit for TDS deduction, therefore, no TDS has been deducted from rent payment and no lease agreement is available. AO further observed that since the assessee has failed to file any documentary evidence regarding rent/ lease deed and also the ownership documents of the parties to whom rent have been paid. As such the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of his claim of rent of ₹ 6,85,300/-, therefore, the claim of payment of rent of ₹ 6,85,300/- was held as non-genuine and the same was disallowed and added back to the return income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment at &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. vs. CIT and the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Stainless Steel Inds. vs. CIT 324 ITR 396. Further with regard to addition of ₹ 6,85,300/- on account of factory rent expenses is concerned, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the parties have legal right in the property on which the factory of the assessee is running, however, the said building is an ancestral property located in Lal Dora area, so the shares of the owners are not individually defined and transferred through registered deeds. It was also submitted that there is no implication of TDS on the said payments since they are below the specified threshold limit as defined in section 194I and as per the provision of section 30 as l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, the ground no. 2 is dismissed. 5.1 As regards disallowance of ₹ 6,85,300/- on account of rent payment is concerned, it is noted that assessee had failed to furnish any documentary evidence with regard to his claim of payment of rent to the 7 persons as recorded in the assessment order. No evidence of ownership of the property by these persons was furnished. The assessee had also failed to furnish the copies of lease a agreements. In these circumstances, the genuineness of the claim of deduction pertaining to rent expenditure remained unverified. Even during the course of appellate proceedings, no evidence of ownership of property by the 7 persons to whom th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
