Sandeep Singh Karhail ORDER
Sandeep Singh Karhail, Member (J)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29/05/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, ["learned CIT(A)"], for the assessment year 2014-15.
2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-
"Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), your appellant submits herewith the following Grounds of Appeal (which are taken up without prejudice to each other) for your sympathetic consideration.
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the facts that the maintenance charges is not received/credited by the Appellant.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,00,659/-as income from house property.
3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal."
3. The only dispute raised by the assessee is against the taxation of maintenance charges in its hands as income from house property.
4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business of construction and development of land and mainly implementing Slum Rehabilitation Project and also earns income from renting of properties. For the year under consideration, the assessee e-filed its return of income on 27/09/2014, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,58,39,675. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has given on rent multiplex and office no. 104 and 105 on Neelyog Square to Fame India Ltd, Future Generali India LIC Ltd, and Future Generali India Insurance Co Ltd. From the information available on AIR and ITS, certain discrepancies were found vis-a-vis the income declared in the profit and loss account:-
5. On being asked about the discrepancy of Rs. 13,00,659, in the values shown in the AIR as well as the audited books of account, the assessee submitted that the above parties have paid rent as mentioned in column (3) above and also paid maintenance charges to the proposed society. It was further submitted that the difference of Rs. 13,00,659, was towards the maintenance amount, which is not the income of the assessee.
6. The Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 30/08/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that no documentary evidence has been furnished by the assessee to prove that the said sum of Rs. 13,00,659, was received by it as maintenance charges. Accordingly, the AO added the aforesaid amount to the total income of the assessee under the head "income from house property".
7. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue and held that the tenants have deducted TDS on the gross amount which is inclusive of the maintenance charge and the assessee has claimed the entire TDS. The learned CIT(A) further held that while computing the gross rent received by the house owner it has to be inclusive of the maintenance charge since payment of maintenance charges is the liability of the house owner. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. As per the a........