TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring about 45 x13 on a monthly rent of Rs. 450 and a fixed amount of Rs. 125 towards amenities (which is not refundable) and the consolidated amount of Rs. 575 per month (Rs. 450 towards rent and Rs. 125 monthly amenities charges) become payable on or before 5th of every month." The rent agreement does not show what the amenities are, but, at the time of hearing, it was submitted that the amenities given were the services of one sweeper and watchman and provision of electricity for the common corridors, staircase etc. and water facilities with overhead tanks and connections to the various apartments. The payments towards amenities are collected separately and such collections amounted to Rs. 2,125 for the asst. yr. 1971-72 and Rs. 6,900 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such property could be reasonably let out from year to year. If an assessee splits up the amount receivable into two parts that would not necessarily mean that he will be assessed only to that part of the income which, according to him, relates to rent. 5. That apart, we have further to see whether any amenities are provided by the assessee for which he receives payments which are not an integral part of letting out the house property. Where a property in its entirety is let out the owner would not be under an obligations to provide for any amenities. In such cases where amentities are provided and they do not form an integral part of letting out of the property it could perhaps be considered separately. But when property is dividend int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough overhead tanks and pipes. The expense on this is also on account of letting out the property only. 6. Thus, on an analysis we do not find any particular amenities which are provided by the assessee. As such even if the rent agreements treat them as separate, the ITO would be justified in treating the same as part of the figure for arriving at the annual letting value of the property. 7. We are fortified in this decision by this decision by the authority of the Kerala High Court in the case of P.A. Varghese vs. CIT 80 ITR 180 (Ker). The case relied on by the assessee in not applicable here because there the Tribunal found as a fact that there were separate services rendered. We are unable to give such a finding here. 8. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
