Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee as well as revenue have filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2014-15. 430/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2014- 15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A). erred in confirming the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the premises owned by the appellant at Central Garden Complex Chunabhatti, Mumbai at Rs.22,95,290/- instead of Rs.15,77.192/- offered by the appellant based on the municipal rateable value of the said premises. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid premises were vacant throughout the previous year and accordingly the Appellant had rightly adopted the municipal rateable value for the purpose of determining income under the head 'Income from House Property'
2. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is illegal. bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of the natural justice.
3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.”
4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 29.07.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,02,78,160/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Therefore, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee received the income from house property to the tune of Rs.33,57,314/- and income from other sources to the tune of Rs.70,45,850/-. On verification, it was also found that the assessee has shown her flat at Central Garden Complex as vacant and has offered annual rental value of the flat as per the municipal ratable value at Rs.15,77,192/-. Notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the AO took the annual ratable value on the basis of the report of 430/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Inspector dated 23.12.2010 based upon the market rate to the tune of Rs.2,96,57,575/-. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was assessed in sum of Rs.2,99,34,430/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) considered the ratable value taken into consideration for the A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, the CIT(A) has enhanced 1/9th of the said value to arrive at the ALV for the relevant assessment year. The assessee was not satisfied, therefore, has filed the present appeal before us.
We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. At the very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the case of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2013-14 in and ITA. No.685/M/2018 dated 22.03.2019, therefore, in the said circumstances, the municipal ratable value is liable to be taken into consideration for the assessment of the vacant premises and accordingly is liable to be taxed. The Copy of order is on the file and the relevant finding is hereby reproduced as under: - “9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that assessee is having flat in central garden complex which was vacant during the year and offered the ALV of the flat as per municipal ratable value at Rs.15,06,201/-. The said ALV was substituted by the AO by Rs.2,77,17,360/- on the basis of enquires made in the field by the inspector of Income Tax resulting into an addition of Rs.1,83,47,811/-. 10. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the ALV of the flat which was vacant during the year has to be determined on the basis of municipal ratable value by municipal authorities in A.Y. 2006-07 as increased by 5% every year. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor in A.Y. 2010-11 took the ALV at Rs.17,03,369/- and finally the determined the current ALV at Rs.20,81,895/- after ITA. No.547/M/18 430/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 making necessary adjustments for the annual increase. Thus the dispute before us is only with regard to the ascertainment of ALV where the flat was vacant during the year. In the case of DCIT vs. Laxmi Jain in A.Y. 2009-10 the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 High Court held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be made on the basis of municipal ratable value and thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Laxmi Jain vide order dated 16.04.2018 on the ground that there is no substantial question of law arising from the Revenue’s appeal. In the case of Harsh Jain vs. DCIT in ITA No.2710/M/2013 A.Y. 2009-10, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has held that the ALV of the property has to be computed as per municipal ratable value as deemed income from the house property. The said decision of the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Harsh Jain vide order dated 05.02.2019 where the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.”
On appraisal of the above said finding, we find that the Hon’ble ITAT has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of decision in case of DCIT Vs. Laxmi Jain in ITA. No.2118/M/2012 for the A.Y. 2009-10. The case of the Laxmi Jain is related to the same building in which the assessee is holding her flat. The Laxmi Jain has stated to the member of the family of the assessee. The said case has been decided on the basis of decision of Jurisdiction High Court in case of Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 in which the annual letting value of the vacant flat has been taken into consideration on the basis of municipal ratable value of the premises. Subsequently, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the Laxmi Jain has been upheld by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA. No.1285/M/2015 dated 16.04.2018. In the case of Harsh Jain Vs. DCIT in ITA. No.2710/M/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10 dated 05.02.2019. The co- ordinate bench has taken the similar view in which the municipal ratable value has taken into consideration for the deemed income from the house property. The said decision has also been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High ITA. No.547/M/18 430/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15