VARSHRAJ EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent by RPAD was served upon the assessee. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

The only issue urged in this appeal is relating to disallowance of depreciation claimed on the property let out by the assessee.

I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The assessee owned two properties, viz., one at Andheri and another one at Vapi. The assessee had let out both the properties to third parties. The rental income was originally disclosed under the head “income from house property” and deduction @ 30% u/s. 24 was also claimed. However, during the course of 2 Varshraj Exports Pvt.Ltd.

I noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on both the properties in the grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal. However, assessment of rental income under the head ‘income from house property’ has been accepted by the Assessee. There should not be any dispute that the income from house property is required to be computed as per the provisions of the Act and the Statute does not provide for allowing depreciation while computing the income under the head Income from House property. I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has brought out this legal position in his order and accordingly rejected the claim of the assessee. In view of the above said legal position, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 13.10.2016