TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the law prevailing on the subject, the impugned 'Assessment Order' dated 27 March 2015 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act is void ab initio being barred by limitation and hence, ought to be struck down and the CIT(A) / NFAC ought to have held as such. 1.3. The Appellant submit that the Assessment Order is barred by limitation and is therefore void ab-initio and hence ought to be struck down as such. Without prejudice to the above: 2. Re.: Addition to total income amounting to Rs. 1,47,74,519/- 2.1. The CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,47,74,519/- made by the AO on account of alleged difference in the gross receipts as appearing in Form No. 26AS and as reported and reflected in the Profit and Loss account which is offered to tax in the return of income for the year under consideration. 2.2. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had provided a reconciliation of income as per Form No. 26AS with respect to the income offered to tax in its return of income for the year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in confirming the erroneous recovery of interest levied u/s. 234D of the Act. 7. Re.: Penalty initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 7.1. The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject, the CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and / or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Assessee is engaged in the business of leasing/renting commercial premises. It filed its return of income on 28/09/2012, declaring a loss of Rs. 2,30,20,212/-. During scrutiny assessment, the Ld.AO observed that, whereas the assessee had disclosed rental receipts of Rs. 6,83,61,897/-, rental receipts aggregating to Rs. 8,31,36,416/- were reflected in Form No. 26AS. The difference of Rs. 1,47,74,519/- was added as income from house property, after allowing the statutory deduction u/s. 24(a) of the Act. 2.1. The Ld.AO further note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 35,23,183/-, respectively. The Ld. AR submitted that, if rental income disclosed in the books had been accepted in those years, the Revenue could not selectively adopt the figure in Form No. 26AS in the year under consideration merely because it was higher. 4.2. In respect of the disallowance u/s. 24(b), the Ld.AR submitted that the earlier bank borrowings against the properties, comprising short-term borrowings of Rs. 60,38,19,276/- and current maturities of long-term debt of Rs. 1,81,49,132/-, were replaced by inter-corporate deposits during the year. It was submitted that no additional borrowing was raised for any other purpose. The Ld.AR referred to the audited financial statements, cash-flow statement and confirmations from Future Finance Ltd. and Future Capital Holdings Ltd. submitted to the Ld.AO on 23/02/2015, which confirmed that the advances were for acquisition/construction of house property. It was also submitted that interest of Rs. 1,89,43,021/- paid to Deutsche Bank AG related to the preexisting loan, deduction in respect of which had been allowed in assessment year 2011-12. 4.3. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. We have perused th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f tax requires verification with reference to the lease agreements, invoices, ledger accounts and assessment records of the preceding and succeeding years. The addition cannot be sustained merely by adopting the amount reflected in Form No.26AS, without examining whether the corresponding income had already been offered to tax in another year. 6.2. We also note that the assessee had furnished a party-wise reconciliation during the assessment proceedings and specifically alleged that no further query or show-cause notice was issued before drawing the adverse inference. The Ld.CIT(A) also did not carry out verification of the year-wise reconciliation or the audited accounting treatment, despite the submissions having been placed before him. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Ld.AO for de novo verification. 6.3. The assessee shall furnish a complete tenant-wise and year-wise reconciliation of the amounts reflected in Form No. 26AS with the rental income offered to tax, together with lease agreements, invoices, ledger accounts and relevant audited financial statements. The Ld.AO shall verify whether any part of the impugned receipts has been offered to tax in an....