Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 (for short ‘the CIT(A), for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143 (3) of the Act the additions made by the AO.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-
“Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to the compute the ‘Income from House Property on the basis of ‘Municipal Rateable Value’ placing reliance on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M V Sonavala Vs CIT 246 ITR 177 (Bom) [HC] where the issue was Assessment Year: 2011-12 whether the actual compensation received or the municipal rateable value should be taken as the annual value (ALV) whereas in the instant case the issue is whether Municipal Rateable Value, even if it does not give the correct fair rent should be taken as Annual Value in case of self-occupied properties never let out and hence where Rent Control Act is not applicable.
2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to the compute the ‘Income from House property’ on the basis of ‘Municipal Rateable Value’ although the Municiapl Rateable Value’ has been held as not binding on the Assessing Officer by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs Moni Kumar Subha 333 ITR 38 (Del)(HC) 2011 and this view has been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court in its judgment dated 8th August, 2014 in the case of CIT-12 Vs Tip Top Typography [2014] 48 taxmann.com 191 [Bom] [HC].
3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to the compute the ‘Income from House property’ on the basis of ‘Municipal Rateable Value’ although the property was not let out and hence ‘expected reasonable rent’ was determined on the basis of material placed on record in the form of judicial pronouncements in Radha Devi Dalmiya Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 134 [All.] (HC) and Sri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust Vs CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005 [Guj] (HC) wherein the Courts laid down the ratio to determine the annual value in the event of lower municipal rateable value.
4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D without considering the ratio laid down by the Special Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Daga Capital management Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (Mumbai) and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 234 DTR 1 (Bom) in respect of the applicability of the rule 8D for disallowing other expenses or indirect expenses.
Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, following the direction of ITAT in ITA/877/2013 dated 30.07.2014 in assessee’s own case wherein it was held that the disallowance u/s 14A was made in excess of the total Assessment Year: 2011-12 expenditure claimed by the assessee in the Profit & Loss A/c, whereas it is not so in the instant case.” 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the respondent/assessee pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs.20 lacs and as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11th July, 2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the ITAT is 20 lacs.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that this appeal is not maintainable in light of the above said CBDT Circular. The Ld. DR also did not point out that this appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved out in the above said circular.
We have gone through the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds of appeals. We find that the tax effect in the above referred appeal is less than Rs. 20 lacs. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.