Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJEET SINGH
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
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.
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”.
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.
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.”
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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2018.