TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax [herein after "CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center [NFAC], Delhi for AY 2015-16. For the purposes of convenience all the aboves appeals are taken by way of this common order. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 24 days each in both the appeals vide ITA nos. 1688 and 1796 in filing of this appeal by the Revenue. It has been pleaded that the concerned officer was handling additional charges and was overwhelmingly preoccupied with time barring assignments leading to delay in timely filing of this appeal. Upon considering the facts we are satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons and proceed to condone the delay and adjudicate this appeal ITA No. 1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 3.0 The first issue arising from the appeal of the Revenue is regarding decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition made by the Ld. AO by disallowing amounts written off by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. AO has discussed the issue in para 8 on page-3 to 9.3 on page-4 of his assessment order. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had written off capital advance of Rs. 15,48,82,294/- paid to a related party namely M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Ld. AO had not rejected its books of accounts u/s 145 while observing the above anomaly. Thus, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which requires any intervention at this stage. Accordingly we confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal in respect of write off of bad debts raised by the Revenue. 5.0 The next issue raised by the Revenue is regarding the action of Ld.AO in treating the income offered under the head house property as business income amounting to Rs. 9,26,96,682/-. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that before the Ld.AO the assessee had explained that its business is to construct ware houses and lease it to the customers. The Ld. AO has discussed the issue in para 10 to para 10.3 of his order of page 5 and 6. Before the Ld. AO, the assessee had explained that he is in this business for a long time and had been consistently offering income as income under the head house property and not as a business income because no deductions like depreciation, salary, travel etc have been claimed. The Ld. Counsel explained that the Ld. AO rejected the arguments that because it is the business of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd a period of four years mandated in law and hence the reopening was unsustainable. The Ld. DR argued that the Revenue's case is protected by contemporaneously applicable TOLA guidelines stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of Covid-19 epidemic. 9.0 We have considered the matter and are of the view that there is no merit in the CO raised by the assessee. The assessee has not been able to place on record any material to demonstrate correctness of its stand. We have also noted that the Revenue's case is covered by the TOLA guidelines. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide the CO No.56 are dismissed. ITA No. 1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 10.0 The first issue raised by the Revenue is regarding the Ld. CIT(A) not granting an opportunity of examining the additional evidences and documents submitted by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings and thus violating provisions of section 46A of the act. Upon hearing the rival parties in the light of material available on records, we are of the view that there do not exists any merit in the arguments of the Revenue. The need for admission for additional evidences, inter-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndeed in the nature of periodical reimbursement of the cost of capital asset provided by the assessee and Ld. CIT (A) has rightly held it to be a income of non-revenue nature. We have noted contents of para 4.4 of the lease agreement between the assessee and the lessee available at page 9 of the order of Ld. CIT (A) as under:- "...Fit-out Rent - in addition to the lease rent, the lessee would be responsible for payment of the following amount towards the Fit outs being provided by the lessor ("Fit Out Rent"). The said amount is calculated on an investment of Rs. 1,33,98,379/-. a. Rs. 4,76,023/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy six thousand and twenty three) is payable monthly on account of fit out rent based on the mutually agreed amortization schedule. The above referenced Fit Out Rent shall be computed on the Demised Premises i.e. 66,084 s.ft and shall only be payable during the initial period of 27 (Twenty seven) months from the Rent commencement date i.e. 1st May-2016. The Fit Out Rent is exclusive of serve tax and the lessee shall be liable to pay along with the Fit-Out Rent every month. In the event of premature termination of this Deed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on page-9 to 12 of his order. The Ld. DR vehemently argued in favour of the action of the Ld. AO. 14.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even the high pitched committee of the department, while holding the assessment as a high pitched one had held that the action of the Ld. AO was not supported by facts on record. The order of the Ld. AO has been found to be totally non-speaking order devoid of any plausible reasoning. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the scheme of the act, deduction u/s 23 / 24 of the act would available even if the property was vacant. For the purpose he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Smt.Poonam Sawhney (2008) 20 SOT 69 Delhi and Premsudha Exports Pvt Ltd 17 SOT 293 (110 ITD 158) of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai. It is trite law that the words "property is let out" in the statute does not corresponds to actual letting out of the property. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this remittances qua M/s. AS Carrier Pvt Ltd is fully documented. Consequently invocation of section 69C is incorrect. As regards the hypothesis of sham transaction, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the transaction may be tax motivated but not a sham transaction since the source is explained and the investment has also been clearly placed on records. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Birla Telecom (2021) 125 taxman.com 85 holding that where investment was made by a Mauritius based company with the permission of Government of India, it could not be branded as sham transaction. The Ld. DR filed written submissions also, vehemently arguing in favour of the addition made by the Ld. AO. 16.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The principal controversy is as to whether the purchase of shares by the assessee from the Mauritius based company is sham transaction or not. The Ld. AO has primarily made the impugned addition on the basis of conjectures and premises. The assessment order clearly alludes that no enquiry was done to establish authenticity of the presumptions drawn by the Ld. AO. It....