MAHIPATRAY SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee has moved an application seeking adjournment on the plea that it is in the process of appointing a counsel to represent the matter. Since the reason given by the assessee does not appear to be a reasonable one, we reject the adjournment request and proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without presence of the assessee.

We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was having six flats in an 2 Mahipatray Shah HUF apartment named “Akruti” located at Walkeshwar. The assessee claimed that all the flats are self occupied properties. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee could avail exemption only in respect of one flat and annual letting value of other flats have to be computed by treating the same as “deemed to be let out property” as required u/s. 23(4) of the Act. The assessee did not declare any income as required in section 23(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO computed annual letting value of five flats at 8% of the cost of the flats. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

With regard to determination of the annual letting value, we notice that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has explained the manner of determination of Annual letting value in the case of Tip Top Typography (2014) (48 Taxman.com 191). We notice that the Assessing Officer has determined the annual letting value without following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to determine the annual letting value by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above cited case.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 7.11.2016