VIRENDRAKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 6(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3886/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2018AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ALV should be determined based on the municipal rateable value, as previously decided by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for the preceding year. The ALV was enhanced by 5% from the previous year's value.

What were the facts?

The assessee offered the annual letting value (ALV) of its premises based on the municipal rateable value. The Assessing Officer (AO) recomputed the ALV at a higher amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's computation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct computation of the annual letting value of the assessee's property. The dispute centered on whether to follow the municipal rateable value or the AO's higher computation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJEET SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Agarwal, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R
Hearing: 27.09.2018Pronounced: 31.10.2018

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The only effective issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the annual letting value of Rs.5,10,016/- of the premises of the assessee at Central Garden Complex, Chunabhatti, Mumbai as made by the AO as against Rs.3,86,376/- offered by the assessee based on the municipal rateable value.

2 M/s. Virendrakumar Jain 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case by order dated 14.11.2017 in ITA No.3666/M/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the annual value has been accepted at Rs.4,86,834/- and therefore the same should be allotted in the current year also as the premises of the assessee remained vacant throughout the year and the assessee has adopted municipal rateable value for the purpose of return of income under the head “Income from house property”.

4.

The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, also relied on the order of ITAT as referred to the Ld. A.R. (supra) by submitting that the annual value for the last year i.e. preceding year i.e. 2011-12 was Rs.4,86,834/- and same needs to be enhanced by 5% as has been done in the year 2011-12 and therefore the ALV at Rs.5,10,016/- should be sustained.

5.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record and also the decision of the ITAT, we observe that the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal has upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) who determined the ALV for financial year 2011-12 at Rs.4,86,834/- which was arrived at by 5% to the ALV of preceding assessment year which was Rs.4,63,651/- and therefore the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. The relevant para of the Tribunal is 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 & 3845/Mum/2017 Shri Virendra Jain

3 M/s. Virendrakumar Jain 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 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.”

6.

Therefore, respectfully following the same principle as laid down by the ITAT in the earlier year, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the ALV has been determined by 5% to the previous ALV in A.Y. 2011-12.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2018.

More judgments on Section 23

All 564 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →