TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal read as under: 1. The learned AO as well as CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in treating the amount of Rs. 17,08,908 being recovery towards Common Area maintenance Charges as rental income and taxing the same under the head income from house property. 2. The learned AO as well as CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in taxing the amount of Rs. 17,08,908 towards Common Area Maintenance charges despite the fact that such recovery is not in nature of income and not liable to tax under provisions of the Act. It be so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusive of "CAM" Charges of Rs. 17,08,908/-, the recovery of which was agreed between the assessee and "SEPL". The assessee had clarified that during the impugned year, it had incurred total amount of Rs. 34,29,816/- towards "CAM" charges, out of which 50% i.e. Rs. 17,08,908/- had been recovered/reimbursed by "SEPL", since the assessee had rented out 50% of total space to "SEPL". That accordingly, the assessee had netted off the "CAM" charges paid against that recovered from SEPL and debited the balance amount of Rs. 17,08,908/-in its books of accounts, which in turn had been disallowed while computing the income under the head "income from House Property". However, the assesses contention did not find favour with the AO since he found that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of the CAM charges claimed by the appellant of Rs. 34,29,816/-, no such evidence in the form of Invoice raised by M/s Sleek electrical Pvt. Ltd. has been presented by the appellant, and therefore the appellant's claim in the regard cannot be accepted. I decide not to interfere with the addition made on this ground. 6. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that both the authorities below have completely failed to appreciate the facts of the case. She pointed out that the assessee's explanation on difference in the rent income returned by the assessee and that reflected in the TDS return of Rs. 17,08,908/- pertained to recovery of "CAM " charges by the assessee from one of its tenants, M/s. "SEPL", and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CAMC" charges required to be paid. Drawing our attention to the same, she pointed out that the said invoices were raised by the Star Line Leasings Limited, which had charged an amount of Rs. 3,37,265/- per month for "CAMC" for the space occupied by the assessee. Thereafter, she drew our attention to the invoice raised by the assessee on "SEPL" for recovery of "CAMC" (PB Page No.89 to 100). Drawing our attention to the same, she pointed out that per month an amount of Rs. 1,42,409/- was recovered separately from the rental income collected from the "SEPL" as recovery of "CAMC" for the space occupied by the "SEPL". The ld.counsel for the assessee, therefore, contended that the assessee having furnished all evidences, supporting its contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,816/-, against which Rs. 17,08,908/- was recovered from the "SEPL", and which amount was included in the TDS return. The ld.counsel for the assessee has fairly demonstrated before us that all documentary evidences with regard to the "CAM" charges paid by the assessee, and with regard to the "CAM" charges recovered from "SEPL" was furnished to the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we hold, there was no reason to confirm the addition for non-furnishing of evidences relating to the explanation of the assessee. 9. Even otherwise, we agree with the Ld.Counsel that the basis for confirming the addition, on account of non-furnishing of evidence of payment of CAM charges to SEPL of Rs. 34,29,816/- is completely flawed on facts since the assessee had not p....