Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri Virendra Jain v.
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 54, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: -
1. In the facts and circumstances of the ease and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing officer to re-compute Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the premises owned by the appellant at Central Garden Complex Chunabhatti, Mumbai by increasing the municipal ratable value by 5 % every year instead of Rs. 7,64,223/-
(A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Virendra Jain offered by the appellant based on the municipal ratable value of the said premises. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ratable value was correctly determined and enhanced by the Appellant 3. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to die provisions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of the natural justice.”
At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA.No.3845/Mum/2017 dated 14.11.2017 wherein the Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in determining the ALV of the property considering the Municipal ratable value and increased by 5% year after year.
Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal and Tribunal by order dated 14.11.2017 observed as under: - “6. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that rateable value was offered by assessee at Rs.3,86,376/- in respect of premises situated at Central Garden Complex, Chunabhatti, Mumbai. The said premises were vacant throughout the previous year. The ALV so offered by the assessee was based on the Municipal rateable value. However, the AO did not accept the same and recomputed ALV at Rs.68,36,502/-. The CIT(A) considered various judicial pronouncements including the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography 368 ITR 330 and also decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of other family members of the assessee directed the AO to adopt ALV as per the rateable (A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Virendra Jain value fixed by Municipal Authority at Rs.4,63,651/-. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other High Courts as discussed by CIT(A) in his order and after applying the same to the facts of the case reached to the conclusion that ALV of the house property should be as per the rateable value fixed by Municipal Authority. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the fact that in the immediately preceding year 2010-11, the ALV has been determined at Rs.4,63,651/-, enhanced the same by 5% and worked out to Rs.4,86,834/-. The detailed reasoning given by CIT(A) is as per material on record, therefore, do not require any interference on our part.”
For the year under appeal the Ld.CIT(A) held as under: “6.5 In view of the above, as the facts are identical in this assessment order also, the Ld.AO is directed to compute the ALV after considering the municipal ratable value in which ratable value for AY. 2010-11 has been determined by my predecessor LD.CIT(A) at Rs.4,63,651/- which has been increased by 5% year after year and also further increased l/9th of the said value to arrive at the ALV The Ld.AO is directed to adopt this working and do a backward working to arrive at the ALV for AY. 2009-10.”
Thus, following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2011-12, we sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th March, 2020