TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this assertion could be ascertained but nothing has been done. The assessee has all along declared the rent receipt on the basis of 32634.41 sq. ft. area occupied by the tenant Reliance Mediaworks Ltd. which has been accepted by the predecessor learned AO in the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2012-13 The assessee categorically denied receipt of rent over and above what is reflected in its books of accounts. Nothing has been brought on record to contradict the version of the assessee either by the learned AO or by the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, hold that rental income which has not been received by the assessee cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we delete the impugned addition made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease rent for the financial year 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14 worked out to ₹ 1,52,21,441/- being ₹ 12,68,453 per month as against which the assessee declared rental income at ₹ 11,03,003/- per month which totaled to ₹ 1,39,60,968/-. He, therefore, issued show-cause notice dated 07.12.2015 to which the assessee responded vide letter dated 8.01.2016 stating therein that as per Section 23 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), annual value for rental income is to be taken the actual rent received; the actual rent received by the company is ₹ 1,39,60,968/- @ ₹ 11,63,414/- per month; the rent received @ ₹ 11,63,414/- is after increment @ 15% on ₹ 10,11,664 /-and that the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,63,414/- per month and annual rent of ₹ 1,39,60,968/-. As against this, the learned AO has not accepted the surrender of the area and worked out increased rent on the full area. 5.1 It was argued before the learned CIT(A) that area measuring 2946.34 SFT was already surrendered w.e.f. 01.07.2009 i.e. in the financial year 2009-10. Since then, the assessee is continuously receiving rent on the reduced area. Assessee submitted a chart showing actual rent received along with the area specified with rate per SFT for the financial year 2009-10 to financial year 2012-13. Letter dated 4.09.2009, issued by tenant addressed to the assessee stating therein that the area of 2946.34 sq. ft. has been surrendered out of total area of 35,580.75 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO on the above-mentioned issue is upheld. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned AR drew our attention to paragraph 4 of the learned CIT(A) s order containing the submissions made by the assessee before him. He argued that on identical facts and circumstances, surrender of an area of 2946.34 sq.ft. by the tenant to the assessee has been accepted by the predecessor Assessing Officers. The assessee is in possession of the surrendered area but could not let it out to any other party as the said Mall could not get success. He emphasized that notional rent which was neither received nor accrued to the assessee cannot be brought to tax. The learned DR relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 7. We have consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought on record by way of letter from the tenant to the assessee confirming that 2946.34 sq. ft. area has been surrendered. The learned AO/CIT(A) have rejected the letter of surrender by saying that copy of a surrender letter cannot be treated as evidence and that it does not prove that surrender of leased area was agreed by both the parties. We do not agree. In the case of Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary vs. CIT [389 ITR 411 (P H)], the Court held that copies of documents, in the absence of their original constitute material if they are relevant for the purpose of assessment. Moreover, the letter of surrender of 2946.34 sq. ft. area was written by the tenant Reliance Mediaworks Ltd. to the landlord assessee company and was the outcome of discussi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been applied by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Director of Income-tax vs. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad [266 ITR 349 (Del)]. Rule of consistency has to be followed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Narendra Doshi [254 ITR 606 (SC)]. 7.2 The assessee categorically denied receipt of rent over and above what is reflected in its books of accounts. Nothing has been brought on record to contradict the version of the assessee either by the learned AO or by the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, hold that rental income which has not been received by the assessee cannot be brought to tax. 8. Accordingly, we delete the impugned addition of ₹ 8,82,331/- made by the learned AO which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
