2024 (12) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2018-19 relating to quantum addition and penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 3 days is condoned. 3. Since issues raised in the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. First, we shall take up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o page 81 of the paper and argued that the assessee's share of rental income as per the agreement is Rs.. 8,85,566/-, but, however, the assessee received only Rs.. 3,39,468/-. He submits that the said difference was added by the Assessing Officer on the basis of rental agreement, but however, the said difference of rental amount paid to the assessee in subsequent years. He argued that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified as the same was offered to tax in subsequent years. 8. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT argued that the assessee violated the provisions under section 25(A) of the Act as well as Rule 4 of Income Tax Rules, 1962. She strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. After hearing both the parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion the actual rent received, proceeded to consider only the agreed rent in the agreement. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 53 to 63 and submits that the assessee received rent of Rs.. 3,74,885/-, which is reflected in Form 26AS. He argued vehemently that the Assessing Officer is not correct in making the addition ignoring the evidence in the form of Form 26AS showing the actual rent received. 11. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). 12. After hearing both the parties, we note that admittedly, the assessee received rent from M/s. Mobivil Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. only to the extent of Rs.. 3,74,879/- and also TDS deducted thereon of Rs.. 37,492/-, which is not disputed by both the partie....