THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX JDR. vs. SH. SHAKTI CHADHA KARTA OF HUF
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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)
- Harmonia Consultantpvt Ltd, Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle, FaridabadITA 6452/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2021-22
- Harmonia Consultant Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle, FaridabadITA 6451/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
- Jignesh Kanjibhai Shah Gala, Pune vs DCIT Circle-12, PuneITA 3035/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Ashray Housing, MumbaiITA 6154/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Apr 2026AY 2016-17
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs Ashray Investments, MumbaiITA 6153/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Apr 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026