TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber) For the Assessee : Vijay Mehtra For the Revenue : Sachidanand Dubey-DR ORDER Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee as well as Revenue is in cross appeal against the impugned order dated 28/02/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee, wherein, confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,89,367/- by increasing the municipal rateable value has been challenged, whereas, in the appeal of the Revenue, the Department has challenged the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), wherein, it was held that rateable value, determined the municipal authorities shall be the yardstick, which does not reflect the true ALV. 2. During hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals, Shri Anuj Kishnadwala, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the Tribunal, identically, decided the issue for A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee furnished the copy of the order dated 26/11/2014 (ITA No.2118/Mum/2012), wherein, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. This factual matrix was not controverted by Shri G. N. Makwana, ld. counsel for the assessee. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 26/11/2014 for ready reference and analysis:- This appeal filed by the Revenue on 30.3.2012 is against the order of the CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 9.1.2012 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (ii) Central Garden Complex. In the return of income, for the purpose of computation of ALV of the properties, assessee relied on the rateable values of these properties. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the and rejected the computation of ALV of the said properties and held that a percentage of investment in the properties should reflect correct ALV. Accordingly, he quantified the ALVs and the cumulative ALV of the properties was taken at ₹ 1,65,51,632/- (Galas ALV is ₹ 3,94,508/- and ₹ 1,61,57,124/- is the ALV of other properties). Otherwise, assessee s computation in this regard worked out at ₹ 94,181/- ie., Galas rateable value is ₹ 5,880/- and other properties is ₹ 88,301/-. AO relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Smitaben N Ambani (supra). There are many other decisions from the jurisdictional High Court in the similar lines, the copies of which are placed in the paper book of the asssessee. The Revenue has not demonstrated that the facts of the assessee s case are covered by the decisions cited in ground no.1 of the present appeal. Considering the binding nature of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Smitaben N Ambani (supra), we are of the opinion that the finding of the CIT (A) is an Order and it does not call for any interference on this issue. In any case, the percentage of investment in the impugned properties is no basis for arriving at the ALV of the properties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samitaben N Ambani vs CWT (323 ITR 104) (Bom.). Before us, also, the Revenue has not demonstrated that the facts of the case of the assessee are covered by the aforesaid decision. Even otherwise, the judicial principle says that consistency has to be maintained. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CWT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mum/2013) order dated 17/04/2015 and Ramiti Devi Jain (Mother-in-law) for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07 (ITA Nos. 3268 and 3269/Mum/2011) order dated 25/04/2012 held that the amount is to be taxed u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act and would be rateable at municipal value. In view of this uncontroverted position, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3. In the appeal of the Revenue (ITA No.4726/Mum/2014), the Department has challenged the valuation by saying that the yardstick followed by Hon ble jurisdiction High Court in 323 ITR 104 (supra) can be ignored, in view of the decision in ITO vs Spearhead Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
