THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX JDR. vs. SH. SHAKTI CHADHA KARTA OF HUF

PDF · subscribers
ITR/66/1992HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022013199215 December 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the ITAT had not dealt with the AO's finding that the rent of Rs. 500/- was not genuine, given that the letting was in favour of family members. The Court also observed that the Tribunal's reliance on statutory provisions regarding standard rent was not relevant in this context. Since the ITAT had not addressed the finding recorded by the CIT(A) and the amount involved was insignificant, the High Court considered it inappropriate to further delve into the matter. Consequently, the reference was returned unanswered.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shakti Chadha, Karta of Shri Jangi Lal Chadha HUF, let out two units of a property in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, to members of the HUF itself at a rent of Rs. 500/- per unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the annual value based on market rent, estimating it at Rs. 2000/- per month per unit. The appellate authority upheld the AO's view. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the AO to recompute the annual value based on the rent deeds, stating that for the first five years, the standard rent shall be deemed to be the rent at which the premises were first let out. The revenue has filed a reference to the High Court against the ITAT's order for the assessment year 1984-85.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the annual value of the property under section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, on the basis of the rent deeds? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in directing the recomputation of annual value based on the rent deeds. The AO had determined the annual value based on market rent, estimating it at Rs. 2000/- per month per unit, considering that the letting was to family members and the rent of Rs. 500/- was not genuine. The ITAT's reliance on the rent deeds and the concept of standard rent for the first five years was questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.66 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.66 of 1992 Date of decision:15.12.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ....Petitioner versus Shri Shakti Chadha Karta of the HUF, Shri Jangi lal Chadha C/o M/s. Jalandhar Daree & Niwar Mfg. Co.,Jalandhar. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. N.L.Sharda, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar arising out of its order dated 20.3.1990 in ITA No.650(ASR)/1987, for the assessment year 1984-85:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the annual value of the property under section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, on the basis of the rent deeds?” The assessee executed two rent deeds letting out two units of the property in favour of Karta and member of HUF itself. The property was situated in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and was let out at Rs.500/- each. The Assessing Officer held that the annual value of the property was to be determined on the basis of market rent and estimated the same to be Rs.2000/- per month each. The appellate authority upheld the view taken by the Assessing officer. The Tribunal held that for first five years, standard rent shall be deemed to be rent at which the premises were first let out.

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the ITR No.66 of 1992 2 record. The Tribunal has not dealt with the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that letting out being in favour of the family member, rent of Rs.500/- as shown in the agreement was not genuine. The observation of the Tribunal with reference to statutory provisions to the effect that agreed rent was standard rent, could not be held to be relevant. Since the Tribunal has not dealt with the finding recorded by the CIT(A), we would have sought a report from the Tribunal but since amount involved is insignificant, we do not consider it appropriate to further go into the matter. Reference is returned unanswered. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 15,2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

More judgments on Section 23(1)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →