CRESCENT CHEMICALS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 22(1), MUMBAI

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) failed to consider the various decisions rendered by Honorable ITAT, Mumbai that the Maintenance charges paid to the Society is an allowable deduction while computing Annual Letting Value.

The appellant craves leaves to add, to delete or amend any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a firm and is engaged in the business of dealing in chemicals, plastics, and electrical appliances products and also consignment and indenting agents. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 26/09/2012, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,70,80,898. The return filed by the assessee was selected for 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 year under consideration, the assessee, inter-alia, earned income of Rs.1,18,90,873, under the head „income from house property‟. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the copy of rental agreement and proof of payment of municipal taxes. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that it has partly rented out the property in Windsor House, and the rent received therefrom is duly shown under the head „income from house property‟. It was further submitted that the assessee has claimed municipal taxes including property taxes as well as maintenance charges in respect of same. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 20/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act held that Page | 2

In the appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite various notices being issued, no reply/submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned ex–parte order dated 21/03/2023, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now in appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the additions made by the AO. The assessee has also filed the paper book enclosing the copy of invoices for maintenance charges paid in respect of the aforesaid property. The assessee has also provided a copy of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in assessee‟s own case for the assessment year 2013- 14, wherein the maintenance charges paid, inter-alia, in respect of the aforesaid property was allowed as a deduction while computing the annual letting value along with the municipal taxes paid. However, it is evident from Page | 3

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14/07/2023