RANJAN SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 54(1), NEW DELHI

Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) noted the assessee’s submission and cases relied upon the by the assessee. He distinguished the same and held as under:-

“6.3.1 In the present case, it is observed that the property was let out for 11 month at Rs. 50,000/- per month and at Rs.1,25,000/- per month from the month of March 2013 onwards. The AR has not been able to justify the substantial increase in monthly rent of the property. No particular reason has been specified which led to the increase in rent in March 2013. The only factor stated is that the property was in the proximity of a cemetery. Since this is a permanent feature of the property, this factor is irrelevant. It is further observed that after completion of 11 months period from 01.03.2013 i.e. w.e.f. 01.02.2014, the property was let out at monthly rent of Rs.1,37,500/-. This clearly shows that the monthly rent of Rs.1,25,000/-represents fair rent in the case of this property. It is also to be kept in mind that earlier the property was let out to the Embassy of Zimbabwe for the period from 01.03.2008 to 29.02.2010 at monthly rent of Rs. 2,20,000/-. It has been stated by the AR that the Embassy had agreed to pay higher rent than the actual market rent as it was not regular in paying monthly rent. This fact seems to have been taken into consideration by the AO and that is why the AO has not taken the fair rent of the property at Rs.2,20,000/- per month. However, there is no reason for not treating the monthly rent of Rs.1,25,000/- actually received by the appellant as fair rent for the property. In view of all these facts, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly computed the ALV of the property by considering the monthly rent of Rs. 1,25,000/- as fair rent of the property in accordance with section 23(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed.”

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the records. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceed to adjudicate the issue by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the records. We find that in the present case, in the earlier period, the assessee has put the house on rent to an embassy @Rs.2,20,000/- per month. Thereafter, for some period it was given to an individual @Rs.50,000/- per month and thereafter to some other party @Rs.1,25,000/- per month. In these facts, it is the opinion of the authorities below is that the period during which the assessee has earned Rs.50,000/- per month rental income should be substituted by the rental income of Rs.1,25,000/-. We find that the background of the case clearly reveals that the assessee has conducted in a bona fide manner when it was possible it was put on rent @Rs.2,20,000/- per month which is much more than Rs.1,25,000/- estimated by authorities below. This Rs.1,25,000/- per month is also taken from the assessee’s tenant itself for a period. For those periods when the assessee could put the house on rent only @Rs.50,000/-, the authorities below have drawn adverse inference and held that the same should be substituted @Rs.1,25,000/- per month.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.