TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition of Rs. 3,00,31,873/- being rental income from the property. The crux of argument advanced by Shri Vijay Kumar Bora, ld. DR, is that the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) while granting the relief did not appreciate the facts, as the assessee suppressed its income from house property by not offering true and correct rental income from all tenants in its return of income for Assessment Year 2003-04, identical assertions were made for remaining assessment years, by submitting that the ld. First Appellate Authority wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 3,67,96,393/- (Assessment Year 2004-05), Rs. 3,95,69,419/- (Assessment Year 2005-06) and Rs. 4,26,06,757/- (Assessment Year 2006-07). 2. Since identical grounds are raised in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar [Rs.50,72,233X12] Rs.6,08,66,796 2.1. In view of the above, Assessing Officer worked out the deemed rental income at Rs. 6,08,66,796/-. After allowing deduction u/s.24(a) @ 30% total income was assessed at Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 23,769/- per month to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax was not considered by the Assessing Officer in proper prospective and he deliberately chose to ignore that the assessee's 39 protected tenants were not a party to the proceeding between the assessee and Bank of Punjab/Hem Kunt Chemicals at any stage, thus, the orders therein had no, and could not have any application upon them. The annual value to be assessed in the hands of the landlord/owner is a statutory rent amount only and not the enhanced amount received by the tenant from the sub-tenants/ occupant. The Assessing Officer had committed an error in considering the amount of money deposited, in court, by Bank of Punjab in the subsequent assessment years as rent due to the assessee instead of compensation/occupation charges, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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. 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 any right on any Civil Court to fix the rent of any premises, which is a matter between the Lessor and the Lessee subject to provisions of the Rent Act. The Appellant is expressly barred from receiving any consideration for creation of a sub-tenant or the tenants as per see 16(4) of the Delhi Rent Act. Similar issue with identical facts in assessee's own case was dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n held that in case the property is covered by the Rent Control Act, the annual value u/s 23(1) (a) cannot exceed the standard rent determined under the Rent Control Act because of the restriction on the value of rent as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Kaushik (113 ITR 435). Thus without any specific order in respect of other properties, the Assessing Officer could not have extrapolated the rent using the basis of the Court decision in respect of the L-40 property. The Assessing Officer is thus directed 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 258 have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f sections 25AA and 258, the income (receipt) is to be taxed in the year of receipt and cannot be subjected to tax in AY 2003-04. The rental income for AY 2003-04 would be restricted to the standard rent determined under the Rent Control Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is thus deleted. " 2.3. Before us, no contrary decision was brought on record by either side reversing the aforesaid order, thus, on the Rule of consistency also the assessee is having a good case, thus, the stand of the CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. The Assessment Year 2003-04 is the lead year, wherein, we have upheld the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), whereas, the remaining Assessment Years, on identical fact, the ground r....