TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,331/- without considering the facts of case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) have erred in not considering the fact that Rental Income which have not been received by the appellant should not have taxed as the applicant has submitted sufficient material in support of not having receive the said rent." 3. The assessee is a company which earns, inter alia, rental income from property outlet. 4. It is a scrutiny case. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") perused the lease deed submitted before him. He noticed that the lease deed commenced on 31.10.2007 and monthly rent was decided at Rs. 11,03,003/- with increment of rent @ 15% on the last paid lease rent after the expiry of every three years. On this b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted in writing that it purchased a let out property in the year 2008 located at 2nd & 3rd Floors in Melange The Mall in Meerut and the lease deed dated 19.02.2008 was assigned in favour of the assessee. The total let out area was 35,580.74 sq.ft. @ 31/- PSF to Rave Entertainment Private Ltd. (a unit of ADLABS FILMS LTD.). In view of area measuring 2946.34 sq. ft. having been surrendered by the tenants, the actual rent received was only for the remaining area i.e. 32,634.41 on which rent works out at Rs. 10,11,667/- and increment clause of 15% which was due w.e.f. 31.10.2010 was also applied on this and making the rent @ 35.65 i.e. Rs. 11,63,414/- per month and annual rent of Rs. 1,39,60,968/-. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sian Hotels Ltd. was also submitted. 5.3 The learned CIT(A) did not give relief to the assessee by observing in para 5.5 of the appellate order as under :- "5.5 I agree with the finding of the AO that copy of a surrender letter cannot be treated as evidence as it cannot substitute the Lease Agreement wherein both the lessee and the lessor put their signature in presence of witness. The AO has correctly concluded that the appellant had failed to discharge his onus to prove the surrender was agreed to by both the parties concerned. In view of the same the contention of the appellant is not accepted. The ground of appeal is decided against the appellant. The order of the AO on the above-mentioned issue is upheld." 6. Aggrieved, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46.34 sq. ft. was surrendered w.e.f. 01.07.2009. In support thereof, the tenant Reliance Mediaworks Ltd. addressed a letter dated 4.09.2009 to the assessee whereby it was confirmed that after discussion and multiple meetings the area of 2946.34 sq. ft. has been surrendered out of total area of 35,580.75 sq. ft. The effective area will be 32,634.41 sq. ft., all other terms and conditions of the lease deed will be the same. The Rent ledger clearly shows that w.e.f. 01.07.2009, the rent has been paid by the tenant Reliance Mediaworks Ltd. to the assessee for 32,634.41 sq. ft. area occupied by it. The learned AO has not only discarded book entry but also the evidence brought on record by way of letter from the tenant to the assessee confirming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts remain the same in the succeeding assessment year 2013-14, presently under consideration. In Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT [193 ITR 321 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings but where a fundamental aspects permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (supra) has been applied by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Director of Income-tax v....