VISTASP F BANAJI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1043/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 December 2015AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing them to decide afresh after considering the letter from Harsh Homes and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Premsudha Exports.

What were the facts?

The assessee's grievance was that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in determining the annual value of a residential property under Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act, claiming it should be Nil. The assessee argued that efforts were made to let out the property.

What were the issues?

Whether the annual value of a residential property can be determined as Nil if efforts were made to let it out, and if additional evidence can be considered by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23(4)

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, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

Hearing: 16.12.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, Mumbai dated 4.12.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO for determining the annual value of the residential property u/s. 23(4) of the Act. It is the claim of the assessee that the annual value of the property has to be taken as Nil.

3.

At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd., in for A.Y. 2007-08 and 110 ITD 158. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that facts in issues in the present appeal are squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee had made efforts to let out the property. To substantiate the claim, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the letter dated 8.9.2008 from Harsh Homes. The Ld. Counsel pleaded that since this letter was not before the lower authorities, therefore, this additional evidence should be accepted as it goes to the root of the matter.

4.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the decision of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. 110 ITD 158. We have also perused the contents of the letter of Harsh Homes . We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. Prima facie it appears that the assessee did made efforts to let out the property.

5.

In the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the letter of Harsh Homes in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Premsudha Exports (supra).

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 16th December, 2015.

More judgments on Section 23(4)

All 92 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →