Case Law Details
ACIT Vs A.B. Hotels Limited (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that rule of consistency cannot be followed when the assessee has not discharged its onus and there is leakage of revenue.
Facts- This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A). The appeal is filed mainly on the ground that CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting disallowances of Rs.7,67,21,258/- which pertains to house property income but wrongly claimed in the P&L by the assessee.
It should be noted here that the assessee has suo moto disallowed part of lease rent of rental portion and municipal taxes related to rental portion and had also claimed deduction of 30% for repair under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act in the computation of income. However, being dissatisfied by the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee and exemption claimed u/s 24 of the Act, the AO picked up the issue and observed that the assessee had only shown receipt of Rs.2,47,24,241/- as maintenance charges from the tenants and has incurred expenditure towards maintenance from the common pool which consisted of expenditure towards hotel area as well as rental area.
Conclusion- Held that the onus was on the shoulders of the assessee to show that the actual expenditure incurred on rental operation from the common pool of expenses was equal or less than the amount received as maintenance charges and shown in the P&L Account. But, in the present case, the assessee has not discharged its onus and we are of the view that blindly following the rule of consistency a mistake cannot be allowed to be persisted when the leakage of revenue is clearly discernible.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
