2017 (10) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Ld. Add. CIT. made in additions of Rs. 225000/- being the cash component of rent not declared by the assessee while it has been confirmed by both i.e. tenant and landlord that no such cash rent has been given /taken. The confirmation had already been filed while filing the appeal at page no. 22. So, the fictitious addition should be deleted being against the facts of the case. However the Ld. CIT restricted the addition to 75% of the amount Rs. 118750/- being the shares of assessee. 3. That in any event the order passed is illegal unlawful and unjustified taking into consideration the facts of the case apparent on records." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is running a business of export of readymade garments as a pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al, it was indicated that the assessee had received Rs. 8.70 lakh in cash as rent deposit on 24.10.2007. The Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that there papers pertained to renting out of property No. F-1 and F-2, First Floor, Malik Plaza, Plot No. 5, Sector 4, Dwarka which was jointly owned by the assessee (75% share) and one Shri Johnson Benchanin (25% share) w.e.f. 1.1.2008. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer calculated cash component of rent at Rs. 2,25,000 for three months and added the same to the income of the assessee. Certain other additions were also made and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 64,34,650/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent year 2009-10 wherein vide order dated 30.11.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, no addition on this account had been made. Ld. AR also filed copy of the aforesaid assessment order in support of its contention. 7. Learned Departmental Representative placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below and vehemently argued that the addition had been rightly made. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue at length in para 4.5 of the impugned order which is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:- "4.5 In the next ground of appeal, the appellant has impugned the addition of the alleged non-existent cash portion of rent of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese premises admeasuring 1260.39 sq. ft. was owned by the appellant jointly with one Sh. Johnson Benchanin with the appellant being owner to the extent of 75% and Sh. Benchanin to the extent of 25%. Since the rent agreement was effective from 01.01.2008, and the cash portion of the rent amounted to Rs. 75,000/- per month as per the impounded document, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2.25,000/- to the income of the appellant as undisclosed rental income. In response, the appellant has denied having received any rental in cash. At the same time, while filing a rejoinder to the Remand Report, the appellant has submitted that he had filed a rectification application u/s. 154 to the Id. AO. A copy of this rectification application reveals that t....