TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property is commercial in nature. Therefore, the provisions of section 22 of the Act are not at all applicable. Hence, the addition made as income from house property is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order under appeal is reversed and the addition is deleted. - ITA No.553/LKW/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-5-2019 - SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT For The Appellant : Shri A. R. Shukla, Advocate For The Respondent : Smt. Alka Singh, D. R. ORDER This is assessee s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly, dated 30/6/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13, taking the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the learned CIT (Appeals) Bareill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961, without considering the fact that the assessee took into account only Rent for eight months of ₹ 18,00,000 (225,000*8) and not all the Rent Paid for nine months ₹ 20,25,000 (225000 *9) as shown in 26AS, Lying the year under consideration as the Rent paid was disputed violated the Clauses of Lease Deed that an increment of 10% in Rent will be applicable after every 3 years As the Rent was not enhanced the clause was violated hence the disputed amount and TDS on it were not accepted as Income and accordingly not shown in Return for the year. 5. Because the disallowance addition of (14,17,500 - 7,38,000) ₹ 6,79,500/- as Taxable Income was wrong and highly unjustified. 6. Because th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee replied that: the assessee do not own the property at A-12, Phase 2, Noida as this is the property of M/s Bhandari Fibertech Pvt. Ltd. having Regd. HO at IInd Floor, 9009/11, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, Delhi. A proof in this regard is enclosed from the NOIDA authority sending a Demand Proof of Annual Fees in its name along with Possession Certificate, thereby confirming the ownership of the Property by M/s Bhandari Fibertech Pvt. Ltd. 5. The A.O observed that: Possession certificate of NOIDA Authority shows possession of the property w.e.f. dated 13/10/1995 which is very old. There is no proof regarding present owner of the property. It may be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion. This Demand Notice is scanned and reproduced hereunder, for ready reference: 9. This Demand Notice proves that it is M/s Bhandari Fibre Tech, and not the assessee, who is the owner of the property, which is a commercial property. 10. The ld. D.R. has contended that as observed by the authorities bellow, no evidence was produced by the assessee regarding the ownership of the property in question being of someone else, and not of the assessee. 11. In his written submissions (reproduced at pages 2 to 4, the relevant portion at page 3, of the impunged order), the assessee submitted as follows before the ld. CIT(A): The assessee is enclosing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
