Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Pawan Singh (JM) & Shri S Rifaur Raheman (A.M.) Shri Satyapal J Jain vs
Aggrieved by the additions in assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) found that the assessing officer had cogent information in his possession as the assessee ha let out 16 flats at the following rents:-
S.No. Flat No. Area in Sq.mtr Monthly rent Monthly rent per sq.mtr 1 301 125.80 49,500 393.4817
5 ITA 6752/Mum/2018
2 302 153.18 66,000 430.8656 3 303 152.40 66,000 433.0709 4 304 153.25 66,000 430.6688 5 501 125.80 49,500 393.4817 6 502 153.18 66,000 430.8656 7 503 152.40 66,000 433.0709 8 504 153.25 66,000 430.6688 9 401 125.80 49,500 393.4817 10 402 153.18 66,000 430.6698 11 403 152.40 66,000 433.0709 12 404 153.25 66,000 430.6688 13 201 125.80 75,000 596.1844 14 202 145.58 92,000 631.9549 15 203 144.81 92,000 635.3152 16 204 145.40 92,000 632.7373 6. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the assessing officer in adopting the annual letting value. With regard to the property income in respect of 16 flats for the period from 01-04-2014 to 14-07-2014, the Ld.CIT(A) found that the assessing officer has worked out notional rent for those flats and made addition of Rs.38,77,2590. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee would be entitled for vacancy allowance for the period for which the property was vacant. In this case the property was given on rent from 15-07-2014 and the assessee has shown the actual rent received. Therefore, the determination of house property income for three and half months of the year during which the property was not let out, was not warranted. Thus, he directed the AO to delete addition of Rs.38,27,250/- made on this account. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and the learned departmental representative
6 ITA 6752/Mum/2018 (DR) for the revenue and perused the record. The main grievance of the assessee in the grounds of appeal before us is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the premises owned by the assessee at Central Garden Complex Chunabhatti, Mumbai at Rs. 25,00,928/- instead of Rs. 1,17,937/- offered by the assessee based on the municipal ratable value of the said premises and that the aforesaid premises were vacant throughout the previous year and accordingly the assessee had rightly adopted the municipal ratable value for the purpose of determining income under the head "Income from House Property". The Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2014-15 in assessee’s own case in & ITA No.549/Mum/2018, where the Tribunal, following the order of co-ordinate bench for AY 2013-14 in ITA No.6884/Mum/2017 and ITA No.444/Mum/2018 order dated 26-04-2019 in assessee’s own case directed the assessing officer to compute the ALV by following the order of the Tribunal for AY 2013-14. The Ld.AR of the assessee, therefore, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO with similar directions as in the earlier assessment years.
7 ITA 6752/Mum/2018 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014-15 in and ITA No.444/Mum/2018, vide order dated 26- 04-2019 has considered identical issue and by following another order of the Tribunal for AY 2013-14, has remitted the issue back to the assessing officer to compute the annual letting value of the properties in question as per the directions of the Tribunal for assessment year 2013-14 by the following observations:-
“7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer adopted the same ALV as adopted in Assessment Year 2013-14. The Ld. CIT(A) granted the relief by following the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case or by the order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's family members case in PCIT Vs Harish Jain and PCIT Vs Laxmi Jain (supra).
We have also noted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case (cross appeals) for Assessment Year 2013-14 in and ITA No. 444/Mum/2018 dated 26.04.2019 after following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Laxmi Jain (supra) and in PCIT vs. Harsh Jain (supra) held that ALV of the vacant flats have to be determined on the basis of 8 ITA 6752/Mum/2018 ratable value for the purpose of income under the head "Income from House Property". 9. We have seen that the facts of the year under consideration are similar as of AY 2013-14, therefore, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate bench in and ITA No. 444/Mum/2018 dated 26.04.2019, the assessing officer is directed to compute the ALV by following the order of Tribunal for AY 2013- 14.” 10. Consistent with the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we direct the assessing officer to compute the annual letting value of the properties in question, as per the directions of the Tribunal for assessment year 2013-14. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29-01-2020.