ITO 10(2)(3), MUMBAI V. MANAS PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6987/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8959 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PADMAJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JM ITA NO. 6987/ MUM/20 16 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 ) ITO 10(2)(3) R.NO.216 - A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. MANAS PROPERTI ES PVT. LTD., 10 TH FLOOR, DEV PLAZA S.V.ROAD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI 400 058 PAN/GIR NO. AAECM2637C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY MS. S. PADMAJA ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA DATE OF HEARING 19 / 09 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 / 10 /201 8 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2, MUMBAI DATED 26/09/2016 FOR A.Y.2013 - 14 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE: - 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 11,68,50,670/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HOUSE PROPERTY IN COME AT ACCRUAL BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO THE LESSEE, JUNOBO HOTELS PVT LTD., IN WHICH IT STARTED CARRYING OUT THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 11,68,50,670/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AT ACCRUAL BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 2 TERMED AS COMPENSATION BY ASSESSEE WAS A MISNOMER, IN FACT IT WAS RENT RECEIPT FOR USE OF PREMISES.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 11,68,50,670/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AT ACCRUAL BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXPLOITED COMMERCIALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME, FALLS UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY INC OME AND THE PRECONDITION THAT THE LEASE RENT COMMENCES AFTER THE APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND IMCGM IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE AND IN NO WAY IT EFFECTS THE RECEIPT BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF LEASE.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 11,68,50,670/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AT ACCRUAL BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE LESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.10 CRORES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 194 - 1 OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH PAYMENT (ACTUAL/CONSTRUCTIVE) OF RENT.' 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEF ORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL.' 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), MUMBAI ON THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED.' 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. 4. FACTS I N BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION AND LETTING OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES. T HE ASSESSEE FI L ED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL AND CURRENT YEAR LOSS OF RS.7,49,331. DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE INCOME CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT INCLUDED DIVIDEND OF RS.15,000/ - , INTEREST ON LOAN GIVEN OF RS.11,02 , 56,808/ - AGGREGATING TO RS.11,02,71,808/ - . AGAINST THES E RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS SUCH AS OTHER TAXES, INSURANCE EXPENSES, AUDIT FEE, OTHER EXPENSES ETC. ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 3 AND HAS DECLARED LOSS FROM BUSINESS OF RS.7,49,330/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3). 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED U/S.143(3), AO HAS MADE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.11.76 CRORE S. 6. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS, ORAL CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE OBSERVATION / FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER ANY AMOUNT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE (PROPOSED LESSOR) FROM M/S. JUNOBO HOTELS PVT. LTD. (PROPO SED LESSEE) OR NOT. HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISPOSED TOGETHER. THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT A PROPERTY AT JUHU TARA ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI (COMPRISING OF LAND AND BUILDING STRUCTURE THEREON) TO M/S JUNOBO HOTEL S PVT. LTD TO CARRY OUT A BUSINESS AS HOTEL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF 'SOHO HOUSE VIDE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 18.02.2011 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED VIDE DATED 16.01.2012. HOWEVER, AS PER ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT TWO DISTINCT PERIODS HAVE BEEN RECOGN IZED PERIOD PRIOR TO MEETING OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS FIT - OUT PERIOD AND DATE WHEN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ARE COMPLIED WITH HAS BEEN TREATED AS RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE. LEASE RENT WOULD COMMENCE FROM RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE. RENT COMMENC EMENT DATE WOULD BEGIN ONLY ON COMPLETION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ELABORATED IN TABLE B OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT. PARA 8 OF THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - ' 8.1 THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE THAT BOTH THE LESSOR AND THE LESSEE UNDE RTAKE TO FULFILL THEIR RESPECTIVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND THE STIPULATED TIME FRAME FOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE LESSOR SO AS TO COMMENCE THE LEASE RENT FROM THE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE AS SET OUT IN ANNEXURE 3 HERETO AS PER S CHEDULE AND PROVISIONS THEREIN TIME BEING THE ESSENCE OR AS MAY BE MUTUALLY EXTENDED. THE PERIOD REFERRED TO HEREIN AS THE SAID FIT - OUT PERIOD SHALL START FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION HEREOF AND SHALL END ONE DAY PRIOR TO 1 ST OCTOBER 2011 OR ON THE DATE OF F ULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS IN TABLE B OF THE SAID ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 4 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HEREIN, IN SO FAR AS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT RELATE TO/ARE INCUMBENT ON THE LESSOR, WHICHEVER IS LATER..... ...THE FIT - OUT PERIOD SHALL BE DEEMED TO EXPIR E ON THE DATE OF SUCH COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS / SALES. SIMULTANEOUSLY UPON EXPIRY OF THE SAID FIT - OUT PERIOD, THE NEXT DAY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SAID RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE.......' TABLE B - CONDITIONS RELATING TO / INCUMBENT ON THE LESSOR OF ANNEXURE 1 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW - . - LESSOR SHALL PROCURE APPROVAL FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FILES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS IN PURSUANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATIONS DATED 7TH JANUARY, 2011 WITH REGARDS TO THE COASTAL REGIONAL ZONE CLEARANCE. - LESSOR SHALL PROCURE THE REVISED OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE FROM MCGM IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING AS PER THE SAID APPROVED PLANS. THUS, I FIND THAT COMMENCEMENT OF RENT WAS PRECEDENT ON THE LESSOR FULFILLIN G THE SAID TWO CONDITIONS I.E. PRIOR APPROVALS FROM MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (MOEF) AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE (OC) FROM MCGM. THESE PERMISSIONS WERE TO FORM THE BASIS OF PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE LESSEE MADE THESE PERMISSIONS APPROVAL, BOTH IN ORIGINAL AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT, AS 'CONDITIONS PRECEDENT'. I FIND THAT APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND OC FROM MCGM HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED TILL 31.03.2013. THUS, I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LEASE AGREEME NT HAS NOT FRUCTIFIED INTO 'LEASE'. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY PROVIDED IN CLAUSE 5.6. OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT, THAT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND MCGM, THE AMOUNTS PAID BY LESSEE TO LESSOR AS COMPENSATION / ADVANCE / REVISED ADV ANCE/ AGGREGATE ADVANCE ARE MERELY AN ADVANCE AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY FOR CARRYING OUT STRUCTURAL CHANGES. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE HOTEL PROPERTY IS SITUATED NEAR THE BEACH. AS ITS LOCATION IS IN THE COASTAL REGULATION ZONE (CRZ) AREA, IT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO GET THE APPROVAL FROM MOEF SINCE PAST FOUR YEARS. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE HOTEL PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE LESSEE. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR AND THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN OCCUPIED TILL DATE STRENGTHENS THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM LESSEE IN AY 2013 - 14 ARE AS AN ADVANCE AND NOT AS LEASE RENT. I FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 6 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROCURE THE MOEF APPROVAL ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 5 AND OC BY 31.12.2002, LESSEE WILL HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND THE ENTIRE AGGREGATE ADVANCE PAID BY THE LESSEE SHAL L BECOME FORTHWITH DUE AND REFUNDABLE BY THE LESSOR TO THE LESSEE. PARA 6 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL LEASE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BELOW: 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES HERETO UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SAID AGREEMENTS, IT IS SPECIFICALLY AGRE ED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT IN THE EVENT THAT ON 31ST DECEMBER 2012, THE LESSOR HAS FAILED TO PROCURE THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL, AND / OR HAS FAILED TO PROCURE THE SAID OC IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 4.3 ABOVE, EXCEPT IF THE DELAY IS CAUS ED ON ACCOUNT OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS IN CONDITION (HI) OF TABLE A OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ANNEXED HERETO, THEN THE LESSEE WILL HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND THE SAI D AGREEMENTS TOGETHER BY GIVING A 3 MONTH'S WRITTEN NOTICE. UPON SUCH TERMINATION THE ENTIRE SAID AGGREGATE ADVANCE PAID BY THE LESSEE UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT (SAVE AND EXCEPT TAXES, IF ANY, MENTIONED IN THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE LESSOR FROM TIME TO TIME), SHALL BECOME FORTHWITH DUE AND REFUNDABLE BY THE LESSOR TO THE LESSEE, WITHOUT ANY SET OFF CLAIMS, COUNTER CLAIMS, ADJUSTMENTS, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER. THE LESSOR SHALL USE ITS BEST ENDEAVOURS TO CLAIM REFUND OF THE TAXES (PAID BY THE LESSEE T O THE LESSOR PURSUANT TO THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT) FROM THE APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AS PER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH TAX REFUND, FORTHWITH REFUND SUCH REFUNDED TAX AMOUNTS TO THE LESSEE. IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO THAT THE LESSEE WILL THEREAFTER NOT BE LIABLE TO FURTHER PAY THE SAID ADVANCE THE SAID REVISED ADVANCES OR ANY FURTHER PAYMENTS AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 5.6 ABOVE OR THE SAID COMPENSATION. FURTHER IT IS CLARIFIED THAT UPON SUCH TERMINATION BY THE LE SSEE THE CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND THE SAID AGREEMENTS SHALL SPECIFICALLY FOLLOW AS PER THE PROVISIONS THEREOF.' I FIND THAT PARA 6 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL LEASE AGREEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THE NATURE OF PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. I FIND T HIS AMOUNT TO BE IN THE NATURE OF AN 'ADVANCE' AS IT IS TO BE REFUNDED TO THE LESSEE ON NON - FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 2,10,00,000/ - RENT IS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND A CCORDINGLY THE ASSESSED INCOME UNDER HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME RETURNED IN AT RS. 11,68,50,670/ - . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUES THAT THE TENANT HAS JUST PAID THE ADVANCE AMOUNT BUT NOT OCCUPIED THE PREMISES FOR WANT OF CLEARANCE FROM VA RIOUS STATUTORY AUTHORITIES SUCH AS MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT 85 FORESTS AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FROM MCGM AND PLEADS THAT CALCULATING THE RENT AT ACCRUED BASIS IS NOT CORRECT AND ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE AGREEMENT ENTER ED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TENANT DATED 16.01.2012 WHEREIN IT IS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT LESSER SHALL PROCURE APPROVAL FROM THE ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 6 PRESCRIBED AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS IN PURSUANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 7 TH JANUARY, 2011 WITH REGARDS TO THE COASTAL REGIONAL ZONE CLEARANCE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS ON RECORD, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY ADVANCE FROM THE TENANT, JUNOBO HOTELS PVT. LTD. AND HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY REN T FROM THEM AS THEY HAVE NOT OCCUPIED THE PREMISES FOR WANT OF COASTAL REGIONAL ZONE CERTIFICATE AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION FROM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI. SINCE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAVE NOT MET WITH CONSEQUENTLY NO COMPENSATION/RENT ACCRUE D/BECAME DUE, TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.11,68,50,670/ - AT ACCRUAL BASIS BY ASSESSING THE AMOUNT AS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IS NOT FOUND TO BE IN ORDER AND THEREFORE, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELE TE THE ADDITION. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAD ALSO DELIBE RATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY LEARNED AR AND DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A L EASE AGREEMENT DATED 18.02.2011, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED VIDE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 16.01.2012 BY WHICH THE COMPANY HAD GIVEN ON LEASE ITS PROPERTY I.E LAND ALONG WITH BUILDING STRUCTURE THEREON AT JUHU, MUMBAI TO M/S JUNOBO HOTELS PVT LTD. HOWEVER, NO RENTAL IN COME HAS BEEN OFFERED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. A S PER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, RENT IS RECEIVABLE ON RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE WHICH IS IN TURN CONTINGENT UPON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. UNTIL SUCH COMPLETION OF CONDITIONS PRECE DENT, MONEY RECEIVED ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 7 WILL BE TREATED AS AN ADVANCE. SINCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAD NOT BEEN FULFILLED I.E. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST (MOEF) APPROVAL AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE (OC) FROM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM) HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED, THE RENT RECEIVED WAS TREATED AS AN ADVANCE AND ACCORDINGLY NOT OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 16,20,00,000 ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS RENT (CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF RS.4,20,00,000/ - PER QUARTER). AFTER ALLOWING 30% STANDARD DEDUCTION, AO TAXED RS. 11,76,00,000/ - AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . 9. WE HAD CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 18/02/2 011 AND ALSO SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 16/01/2012. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED VIDE PROPOSED LEA V E AGREEMENT DATED 18.02.2011 TO LEASE OUT PROPERTY AT JUHU TARA ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI (COMPRISING OF LAND AND BUILDING STRUCTURE THEREON) TO M/ S JUNOBO HOTELS PVT. LTD TO CARRY OUT A BUSINESS AS HOTEL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF 'SOHO HOUSE'. THE SAID PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 16.01.2012 . WE FOUND THAT T ILL 31.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN AD VANCES FROM THE PROPOSED LESSEE AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS 'ADVANCE FROM JUNOBO' OF RS.6, 32 , 59 , 560/ - . D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 2.10 CRORES ONLY. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4.23 CRORES WAS RECEIVED I N THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2011 - 12. ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 8 HOWEVER, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT AS A WHOLE BUT CONSIDERED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENTS ONLY ON SELECTIVE BASIS. CONSEQUENTLY, AO REA CHED ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 16,80,00,000 ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS RENT. AO HAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE AMENDED SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 16/01/2012 WHICH WAS EXECUTED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT DATED 18/12/2011. IT WAS CERTIFIED IN T HE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT THAT THIS FRESH AGREEMENT WILL BE SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT AND WHEREVER THERE IS ANY CONTRADICTION OR CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT, THEN TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT WILL PREVAIL OVER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT (TO THAT EXTENT ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT SHALL STAND SUPERSEDED /MODIFIED) 10. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LEASE AGR EEMENT THAT THE PROPOSED LESSEE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STARTING A HOTEL AT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE SITUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS NEAR SEA BEACH / COAST AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS THE PRIME REASON FOR CONVERTING THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY INTO A HOTEL. HOWEVER, FOR CARRYING OUT THIS BUSINESS PRIOR APPROVALS FROM MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (MOEF) AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE (O C) FROM MCGM WERE NECESSARY. THESE PERMISSIONS WERE TO FORM THE BASIS OF PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY . THE LE SSEE IN THIS PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT MADE THESE PERMISSIONS/ APPROVAL [BOTH IN ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 9 ORIGINAL AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT] AS 'CONDITIONS PRECEDENT'. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW T HE EXPRESSION 'CONDITIONS PRECEDENT' MEANS THAT FULFILLMENT OF THE CON DITIONS MUST PRECEDE BEFORE THE PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED AND IT FRUCTIFIES INTO CONTRACT. AS PER LEGALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE - 'CONDITIONS PRECEDENT' IN A CONTRACT, MEANS AN EVENT WHICH MUST TAKE PLACE BEFORE A PARTY TO A CONTRACT MUST PERFORM OR DO THEIR PART. A S PER SECTION 6 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 CL EAR L Y SPECIFIES T H AT THE PROPOSAL IS REVOKED BY THE FAILURE OF THE ACCEPTOR TO FULFILL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ACCEPTANCE. 11. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT A S PER ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT TWO DI STINCT PERIODS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED (A) PERIOD PRIOR TO MEETING OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS FIT - OUT PERIOD AND (B) DATE WHEN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ARE COMPLIED WITH HAS BEEN TREATED AS RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE. THE AGREEMENT DEFINES WHAT IS THE MEANING OF 'FITS - OUT PERIOD' AND WHAT IS THE 'RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE'. 12. PAGE 26 OF THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT DEFINES WHAT IS THE MEANING OF FITS - OUT PERIOD IN THIS PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT. THE RELEVANT PARA 8 OF PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT IS REP RODUCED BELOW: - 8.1 THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE THAT BOTH THE LESSOR AND THE LESSEE UNDERTAKE TO FULFILL THEIR RESPECTIVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND THE STIPULATED TIME FRAME FOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE LESSOR SO AS TO COMMENCE THE LEASE RENT FROM THE RENT ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 10 COMMENCEMENT DATE AS SET OUT IN ANNEXURE 3 HERETO AS PER SCHEDULE AND PROVISIONS THEREIN TIME BEING THE ESSENCE OR AS MAY BE MUTUALLY EXTENDED. THE PERIOD REFERRED TO HEREIN AS THE SAID FIT - OUT PERIOD SHALL START FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION HEREOF AND SHALL END ONE DAY PRIOR TO 1 ST OCTOBER 2011 OR ON THE DATE OF FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS IN TABLE B OF THE SAID CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HEREIN, IN SO FAR AS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT RELATE TO/ARE INCUMBENT ON THE LESSOR, WHICHEVER IS LATER........THE FIT - OUT PERIOD SHALL BE DEEMED TO EXPIRE ON THE DATE OF SUCH COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS /SALES. SIMULTANEOUSLY UPON EXPIRY OF THE SAID FIT - OUT PERIOD, THE NEXT DAY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SAID RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE... . 13. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT A NNEXURE 3 OF THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH ANNEXURE - 1 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT. THE REVISED CONDITIONS ARE AS UNDER (REFER PARA 3 OF PAGE NO 4 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT): TABLE B - CONDI TIONS RELATING TO/INCUMBENT ON THE LESSOR SR. NO. CONDITIONS COMPLIANCE PERIOD (VII) LESSOR SHALL PROCURE APPROVAL FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS IN PURSUANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATIONS DATED 7 TH JANUARY, 2011 WITH REGARDS TO THE COASTAL REGIONAL ZONE CLEARANCE. ON OR PRIOR TO 30 TH JUNE, 2011 OR BEFORE ANOTHER LATER DATE TO BE MUTUALLY DECIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN WRITING, BUT DEFINITELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE BY THE SAID MCGM FOR THE SAID DEFINED IN CLAUSES 4.3 OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT). (VIII) LESSOR SHALL PROCURE THE REVISED OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE FROM MCGM IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING AS PER THE SAID APPROVED PLANS. WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE SAID WRIT TEN INTIMATION / SAID REVISED WRITTEN INTIMATION / SAID MOEF COMPLIANCE WRITTEN INTIMATION, WHICHEVER IS LATER. ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 11 14. THUS, BASICALLY CONDITIONS PRECEDENT REMAINS SAME IN BOTH THE AGREEMENTS . 15. WE HAVE ALSO OBSERVE THAT CLAUSE - 9 OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BOTH THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE WITH THE PAYMENT OF SAID LEASE RENT BY LESSEE COMMENCE FORTHWITH UPON THE EXPIRY OF SAID FIT - OUT PERIOD. FURTHERMORE, I N THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE HAS BEEN DEFINED AS UNDER: PARA 4.6 OF THE SU PPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 'UPON PROCUREMENT OF THE SAID OC FROM THE MCGM BY THE LESSOR, AFTER THE LESSEE HAS FIRST COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS THEREFORE AS SPECIFIED HEREIN, THE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID AGREEMENT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEEMED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE ISSUE.' 16. IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT IN PARA 4.6 THAT RENT C OMMENCEMENT DATE SHALL BE DEEMED T O BECOME EFFECTIVE ON PROCUREMENT OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICA TE FROM MCGM (MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI). IN FACT IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT AT DIFFERENT PLACES THAT TAKING APPROVAL OF MOEF AND OC FROM MCGM WERE THE SINE QUA NON OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT. THE LESSEE WAS TO CARRY OUT NECE SSARY CHANGES IN THE LEASED PREMISES PURSUANT TO APPROVAL OF MOEF TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF MOEF. THE LESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO INTIMATE THE LESSOR THAT IT HAS CARRIED OUT NECESSARY CHANGES AS PER DIRECTIONS OF MOEF APPROVAL, AND THEN THE LESSOR WAS REQUIRED TO PROCURE THE OC FROM MCGM WITHIN 60 DAYS. BOTH ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 12 THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, WHICH MEANS THESE MUST PRECEDE BEFORE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT . 17. FURTHERMORE, ON PAGE 20 OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT IN THE CLAUSE (VIII) IT HAS BEEN C LARIFIED THAT THIS F ITS - OUT PERIOD WILL BE RENT FREE PERIOD. IN OTHER WORDS, NO RENT IS PAYABLE TILL RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE, WHICH AUTOMATICALLY STARTS ON PROCUREMENT OF OC FROM MCGM. HOWEVER, THE LESSEE WILL BE LIABLE TO PAY ALL OTHER CHARGES I.E. ELECTRI CITY, WATER AND OR ANY OTHER CHARGES PAYABLE TO ANY OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OR THE MAINTENANCE AND UP - KEEP CHARGES WHICH SHALL BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE ON THE SAID AGREEMENT. 18. WE OBSERVE THAT IT IS VERY CLEARLY MENTIONED IN VARIOUS PARAS OF THE ORIGI NAL LEASE AGREEMENT THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ARE TO BE MET WITH AND IF POSSIBLE BEFORE END OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AS PER ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THESE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAVE ALSO BEEN STIPULATED IN SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT BUT BY TH IS SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT, THE DATE BY WHICH APPROVAL FROM MOEF WAS TO BE OBTAINED WAS EXTENDED TO 30 TH JUNE 2012. THE LEASE AGREEMENT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE FITS - OUT PERIOD START FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT (PROPOSED) AND SH ALL END A DAY PRIOR TO 1 ST OCTOBER, 2011 (EXTENDED TO 30 TH JUNE 2012 BY SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT ) OR ON THE DATE OF FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS IN TABLE B OF THE SAID CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, WHICHEVER IS LATER. ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 13 19. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT AS PER PARA 4.2 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT THE LESSOR HAS AGREED TO PROCURE THE APPROVAL OF MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST (MOEF) ON OR PRIOR TO 30.06.2012 OR BEFORE ANOTHER LATER DATE TO BE MUTUALLY DECIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT DEFINITELY PRIOR TO THE ISS UE OF OC BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM). THUS, PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT (ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT) WAS DEPENDENT UPON COMPLIANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT BY THE LESSOR I.E. THE LESSOR IS REQUIRED TO BRING APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND LATER OC FROM MCGM. 20. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT AS PER THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT, SINCE THE APPROVAL FROM MOEF GOT ''DELAYED, IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED LESSOR AND THE LESSEE THAT SOME ADVANCE WOULD BE PAID TO THE LESSOR IN THE FORM OF COMPENSATION OR ADVANCE OR REVISED ADVANCE. PARA 5 OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT READS AS UNDER: 5.1 'THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE THAT FOR THE OCCUPATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY FOR CARRYING OUT THE STRUCTURAL WORK A ND THE FIT OUTS THEREON PRIOR TO THE PROCUREMENT OF THE SAID OC BY THE LESSOR, THE LESSEE HAS AGREED TO MAKE CERTAIN PAYMENTS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN TO THE LESSOR (SUCH PAYMENTS HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SAID 'COMPENSATION'). HOWEVER, IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES THAT THOUGH THE SAID COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE BY THE LESSEE TO THE LESSOR ON THE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE, THE AMOUNTS OF THE SAID ADVANCE / SAID REVISED ADVANCE (AS DEFINED IN THIS CLAUSE 5.1 AND ITS SUB CLAUSES HEREINBELOW) SHALL BE PAYABLE AND PAI D WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2011 AND IT SHALL BE A SUM OF RS. 4,20,00,000/ - (RUPEES FOUR CRORES TWENTY THOUSAND ONLY) FOR EVERY QUARTER OR PART THEREOF WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST OCTOBER 2011 AND THEREAFTER FOR EVERY 12 (TWELVE) MONTHS WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST OC TOBER OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR, SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL BE ESCALATED BY 5% (FIVE PERCENT) OF THE LAST PAYABLE AMOUNTS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING QUARTER ENDING ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER OF THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR. SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 5.3 AND 6 HERETO, TH E LESSEE HAS AGREED TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY WAY OF ADVANCE/S ......... ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 14 5.1.1 SIMULTANEOUSLY UPON EXECUTION OF THESE PRESENTS, A SUM OF RS. 2,10,00,000/ - . 5.1.2 THEREAFTER FROM 01ST JANUARY 2012 ONWARD TILL THE ISSUE OF THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL, A SUM OF RS. 2, 10,00,000/ - FOR EVERY QUARTER ON OR BEFORE THE 5 TH DAY OF FIRST MONTH OF EACH QUARTER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SAID 'DUE DATE') IN ADVANCE (EACH SUCH PAYMENT AS MENTIONED IN THE CLAUSES 5.1.1 AND 5.1.2 ABOVE SPECIFICALLY SHALL HEREINAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID 'ADVANCE') 5.1.3 THEREAFTER FROM 1 ST JULY 2012 ONWARDS, BUT PROVIDED THAT THE LESSOR HAS PROCURED THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL, A SUM OF RS. 4,20,00, OOO/ - FOR EVERY QUARTER ON PRO RATA BASIS, ON THE SAID DUE DATE/S IN ADVANCE. EACH PAYMENT AS M ENTIONED IN THIS CLAUSE 5.1.3 SPECIFICALLY SHALL HEREINAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID 'REVISED ADVANCE' 5.1.4 THEREAFTER FROM 01 ST OCTOBER 2012 ONWARD UNTIL THE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE, BUT PROVIDED THAT LESSOR HAS PROCURED THE SAID MOEF FROM 01 ST OCTOB ER OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR, SUCH PAYMENT SHALL BE ESCALATED BY 5%. 21. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE CLAUSE 5.1. OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT THAT COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE BY THE LESSEE TO THE LESSOR FROM THE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE. IT IS CLEAR THAT SINCE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE HAS NOT COMMENCED, NO COMPENSATION (TERM USED FOR RENT) BECOMES PAYABLE, DURING A. Y.2013 - 14. THE ASSUMPTION OF THE AO THAT LESSOR GOT RIGHT ON ACCRUAL BASIS TO GET COMPENSATION WAS INCORRECT. THE LESSEE HAD MERELY AGREED TO PAY SOME ADV ANCE I.E. @ RS. 4.20 CRORES EACH QUARTER, PENDING OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND LATER OC FROM MCGM BY THE LESSOR. FURTHERMORE, B OTH THE PROPOSED LESSOR AND THE LESSEE AGREED THAT ADVANCE AT THE RATE OF RS. 4.20 CRORES PER QUARTER WOULD BE PAID FROM OCTO BER 2011 ONWARDS. IT IS REPEATEDLY MADE CLEAR THAT THIS ADVANCE WAS SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 5.3 AND PARA 6 OF THE PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 15 AGREEMENT. THE RELEVANT CLAUSES/ PARAS SUBJECT TO WHICH PAYMENT OF ADVANCE WAS AGREED UPON, ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: PARA 5.3 IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT IN CASE THE LESSOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL AS PROVIDED IN CONDITION (VII) OF THE TABLE B OF THE SAID CONDITIONS PRECEDENT BEING ANNEXURE '1' HERETO THEN THE LESSEE S HALL BE ENTITLED NOT TO MAKE, ON DEMAND OR AT THE REQUEST BY THE AFORESAID TO THE LESSOR UNTIL THE LESSOR IS ABLE TO PROCURE THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL. HOWEVER, THE PAYMENTS OF THE SAID REVISED ADVANCE SHALL BE FORTHWITH COMMENCED AS PER CLAUSE 5.1.3 ABOVE WI TH EFFECT FROM THE LATER OF 1 ST JULY, 2012 OR THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL, AND THE LESSOR WILL THEN INTIMATE THE SAME TO THE LESSEE AND THEREAFTER WITHIN 5 (FIVE) DAYS OF SUCH RECEIPT, SUCH PAYMENTS OF SAID REVISED ADVANCE SHALL FORTHWITH B E COMMENCED BY THE LESSEE UNTIL PROCUREMENT OF THE SAID OC BY THE LESSOR. HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT THAT THE LESSOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE THE SAID OC WITHIN 60 (SIXTY) DAYS FROM THE SAID WRITTEN INTIMATION / SAID REVISED WRITTEN INTIMATION / SAID MOEF COMPLIANCE WRITTEN INTIMATION (WHICHEVER IS LATER) AS PROVIDED IN CONDITIONS (VIII) OF THE TABLE B OF THE SAID CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, FOR ANY OF THE REASONS WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LESSEE, THEN THE LESSEE MAY SUSPEND THE PAYMENT OF T HE SAID ADVANCES / SAID REVISED ADVANCE UNTIL THE LESSOR PROCURES THE SAID OC FROM THE SAID MCGM. 22. THUS, AS PER THIS CLAUSE 5.3., IF THE LESSOR FAILED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND SUBSEQUENT OC FROM MCGM, THE LESSEE COULD SUSPEND PAYMENT OF ADVANCE . IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT PAYMENT OF ADVANCE WAS SUSPENDED AFTER 30 TH JUNE AND ONLY RS. 2.10 CRORES WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. LIKEWISE, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO SEE PARA 6 OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT WHICH READS AS UNDER: PARA 6 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES HERETO UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SAID AGREEMENTS, IT IS SPECIFICALLY AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT IN THE EVENT THAT ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2012, THE LESSOR 6.1 HAS FAILED TO PROCURE THE SAID MOEF APPROVAL, AND F OR ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 16 6.2 HAS FAILED TO PROCURE THE SAID OC IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 4.3 ABOVE, EXCEPT IF THE DELAY IS CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS IN CONDITION (HI) OF TABLE A OF THE CONDITIONS PR ECEDENT ANNEXED HERETO, THEN THE LESSEE WILL HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND THE SAID AGREEMENTS TOGETHER BY GIVING A 3 MONTH'S WRITTEN NOTICE. UPON SUCH TERMINATION THE ENTIRE SAID AGGREGATE ADVANCE PAID BY THE LESSEE UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT ( SAVE AND EXCEPT TAXES, IF ANY, MENTIONED IN THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE LESSOR FROM TIME TO TIME), SHALL BECOME FORTHWITH DUE AND REFUNDABLE BY THE LESSOR TO THE LESSEE, WITHOUT ANY SET OFF CLAIMS, COUNTER CLAIMS, ADJUSTME NTS, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER. THE LESSOR SHALL USE ITS BEST ENDEAVOURS TO CLAIM REFUND OF THE TAXES (PAID BY THE LESSEE TO THE LESSOR PURSUANT TO THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT) FROM THE APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AS PER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH TAX REFUND, FORTHWITH REFUND SUCH REFUNDED TAX AMOUNTS TO THE LESSEE. IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO THAT THE LESSEE WILL THEREAFTER NOT BE LIABLE TO FURTHER PAY THE SAID ADVANCETHE SAID REVISED ADVANCES OR ANY FURTHER PAYMENTS AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 5.6 ABOVE OR THE SAID COMPENSATION. FURTHER IT IS CLARIFIED THAT UPON SUCH TERMINATION BY THE LESSEE THE CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND THE SAID AGREEMENTS SHALL SPECIFICALLY FOLLOW AS PER THE PROVISIONS THEREO F. 23. IT IS APPARENT FROM P ARA 6 OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT THAT IN CASE LESSOR IS UNABLE TO PROCURE THE APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND PROCURING THE OC THEN THE LESSOR SHALL BE LIABLE TO REFUND THE ENTIRE AGGREGATE ADVANCE PAID BY THE PROPOSED LESSEEE. IF AMOUNT IS TO BE REFUNDED TO THE LESSEE, THEN IT IS ONLY AN ADVANCE. 24. CLAUSE 5.4 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT CLARIFIES THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TILL OBTAINING OF OC FROM MCGM WILL BE MERELY AN ADVANCE AND NOT RENT. THE CLAUSE 5.4.READS AS UNDER: PARA 5.4 IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE SAID COMPENSATION, THE SAID ADVANCE, THE SAID REVISED ADVANCE AND / OR THE SAID AGGREGATE ADVANCE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS THE PAYMENT OF THE LEASE RENT OR THE AMENITIES ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 17 CHARGES OR OTHER SUMS OF MON IES OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER PAYABLE UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE. 25. THE FOLLOWING LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION EMERGES FROM PLAIN READING OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT : A) PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITI ONS PRECEDENT (OBTAINING OF APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND LATER OC FROM MCGM). THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED IN BOTH IN ORIGINAL AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTARY) WAS [ CLAUSE 8.1. R.W.TABLE B OF ANNEXURE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT AND PARA 3 R.W. TABLE B OF ANNE XURE 1 TO SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT] THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT IF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FRUCTIFY INT O THE CONTRACT (HEREIN LEASE). B) ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR TWO DISTINCT PERIO DS (A) PERIOD PRIOR TO MEETING OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAS BEEN TREATED AS FITS - OUT PERIOD, WHILE (B) DATE WHEN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ARE COMPLIED WITH HAS BEEN TREATED AS RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE . BOTH THESE TERMS (FITS - OUT PERIOD AS WELL AS RENT COMMENCEME NT DATE ) HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN PARA 8 AND B OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT. BOTH THESE TERMS REMAIN UNCHANGED EVEN IN SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT. C) IT IS CLEARLY AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PROPOSED LESSOR AND THE LESSEE THAT FITS - OUT PERIOD WO ULD BE RENT FREE I.E. PERIOD PRIOR TO OBTAINING OF APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND OC FROM MCGM WILL REMAIN RENT FREE PERIOD (ON PAGE 20 CLAUSE (XVII) OF H OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT). D) THE COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE ONLY ON RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE. FOR THE RENT COMMENCEMENT DATE TO START THE LESSOR HAS TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, MENTIONED IN ORIGINAL PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT (PARA 4 AND ESPECIALLY CLAUSES 4.2.; 4.6, PARA 5.1.; 5.3, 5.4 AND 5.6 AND PARA 6 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT}, E) THE COMPENSATION / ADVANCE / REVISED ADVANCE / AGGREGATE ADVANCE SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS PAYMENT OF THE LEASE RENT OR AMENITY CHARGES, (CLAUSE 5.4. OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT) F ) ONLY UPON PROCUREMENT OF APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND OC FROM MCGM THE COMPENSATION SHALL BE TREATED AND APPROPRIATED BY THE LESSOR AS COMPENSATION. (CLAUSE 5.6. OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT). WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND OC FROM MCGM THE AMOUNT PAID AS COMPENSATION / ADVANCE / REVISED ADVANCE/AGGREGATE ADVANCE IS MERELY ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 18 AN ADVANCE AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY FOR CARRYING OUT STRUCTURAL CHANGES (CLAUSE 4.6., 5.1. AND 5.6. OF SUPPLEMENTARY LCASO AGREEMEN T). G) CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAVE TO BE MET WITH OTHERWISE WHATEVER ADVANCE IS GIVEN, IT IS REFUNDABLE TO THE LESSEE. [PARA 6 OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEASE AGREEMENT] . 26. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT PROPOSED LESSEE HAD TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS 2.1 0 CRORES GIVEN TO THE PROPOSED LESSOR DURING THE IMPUGNED PERIOD AS 'ADVANCE' AND THAT AO DURING LAST YEAR IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS ONLY AN 'ADVANCE' AND DID NOT FORM TAXABLE INCOME. 27. THE AO ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT ONLY ADVANCE OF RS 2.10 CRORES HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE IMPUGNED PERIOD AND NO FURTHER ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED AFTER 30.06.2012. THE AO DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE PROPOSED LESSEE THAT AMOUNT GIVEN PENDING COMPLIANCE OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT (OBTAINING OF APPROVAL FROM MOEF AND LATER OC FROM MCGM) HAS BEEN TREATED IN ITS (LESSEE) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS 'ADVANCE'. 28. AS CONDITIONS PRECEDENT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, SO NOTHING HAS BECO ME DUE TO THE PROPOSED LESSOR. IN THIS BACKGROUND, FINDING OF THE AO THAT AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION / ADVANCE/ REVISED ADVANCE WAS DUE TO THE LESSOR AT THE RATE OF RS. 4.20 CRORES PER QUARTER IS NOT TENABLE. THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON SELECTIVE READING OF THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 6987/MUM/2016 M/S. MANAS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 19 29. THE DETAILED FINDING SO RECORDED BY CIT(A) ARE AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. FURTHERMORE THE FINDING SO RECORDED ARE SUPPORTED BY OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION, WHICH H AS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 30. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 / 10 /201 8 SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) SD/ - (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 11 / 10 /201 8 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//