Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY
आदेश / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai, dated 15.09.2017 for the AY 2014-15. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
The order of the learned Assessing officer is against the facts, law and circumstance of the case.
2. The learned assessing officer has not provided the proper opportunity of being heard with document supporting the rental advance of Rs.8,30,000/- from the tenant. 3. The learned assessing officer failed to recognize the valid source for the investment, (i.e) Rental advance from the tenant M/s. Catalyst Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd for Rs.8,30,000/-.
The learned assessing officer after accepting the rental advance of Rs.1,70,000/- (represents by one renal agreement) failed to consider and the rental deposit of Rs.830000/- from the same tenant.
5. The learned assessing officer after considering and accepting all other sources for the investment, failed to consider the rental advance of Rs.8,30,000/-. 6. Assessee submitted the rental agreement for the above advance of Rs.10 lacs, (Rs.170000 and Rs.830000), which was not taken into account by the learned officer, which is not correct. 7. The learned assessing officer, without appreciating the above facts and circumstances of the case, simply added the above rental advance of Rs.8,30,000/- as income which is incorrect. 8. The appellant therefore pray that the appeal may be admitted and Order may be passed rendering the justice to the appellant. Relief claimed in appeal The appellant therefore prays that the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be pleased to delete the above addition made in the assessment and thus render justice.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income under the head ‘income from other sources’. The return of income for the AY 2014-15 was filed on 26.09.2014 declaring total income of `9,95,590/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-1(5), Chennai, (hereinafter called as “the AO”) vide order dated 28.06.2016 at a total income of `18,25,590/-. The disparity between returned income and the assessed income is on account of addition of `8,30,000/- by alleging that the source for purchase of immovable property for a consideration of `77 lakhs remained unexplained to the extent of `8,30,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the above Assessment Order, the assessee preferred this appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order had dismissed the appeal by holding as under:
“……….6. Though the document of confirmation of deposit is executed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper bought in the name of the tenant M/s. Catalyst Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., nowhere has the tenant through its Authorized Signatory, affixed its signature in the document. It is executed by Smt. C. Sheela Sofia who is not a tenant. The contents of the Deed of Confirmation of Deposit is detached from reality. It is not clear how the additional security deposit of Rs.8.30 lakhs was left in enjoyment of the appellant by Smt.C. Sheela Sofia when she is not the tenant and would have the sums returned to her or through her heirs, when the tenant M/s. Catalyst Corporate Services Pvt Ltd, vacates the premises. Moreover, the mode of payment of the deposit to the benefit of the appellant has not been brought on record. The original Tenancy Agreement which is in consonance with reality, clearly states that the rental advance is only Rs.1.70 lakhs. Under such circumstances, the document in the form of Deed of Confirmation of Deposit executed by Smt. C. Sheela Sofia lacks evidentiary value and therefore, the same is summarily rejected. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.8.30 lakhs undertaken by the Assessing Officer u/s.69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 is upheld”.
4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred this appeal before us.
Despite due services of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the other hand, Ld.DR submitted the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is reasoned one and based on the facts of the case and no interference is called for.
We have heard the submissions of learned DR and perused the material on record.
The only issue in the present appeal relates to the addition of `8,30,000/- as unexplained source for investment in the purchase of immovable property. The assessee offered explanation before the AO that the same was received from Tenant M/s.Catalyst Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., by way of rental deposit. But the assessee had failed to lead the evidence before the AO in support of this submission. However, during the course of proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed rental agreement executed by one Smt.Sheela Sofia, which was unsigned by the tenant and executed by Smt.Sheela Sofia, who is not a tenant. The Ld.CIT(A) considering the original agreement had come to conclusion that the rental deposit is only `1.7 lakhs and accordingly, confirmed the addition of `8.30 lakhs as unexplained source for the investment in the immovable property. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is based on the due appreciation of evidence on record and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeals are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 26th day of February, 2020 in Chennai.