TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lassified under Non-Transport category - Business was carried on in Kumbakonam, whereas, the car was registered in Chennai - Disallowed the claim of depreciation on the car considering it to be personal in nature – Held that:- The car might have been registered as Non- Transport category vehicle, but, this will not preclude an assessee from using it for the purpose of its business. There is no Rule that every vehicle owned in a business, even if used by employees and executives, also should be registered as Non-Transport category vehicle. Just because the car was registered in Chennai and business of the assessee was in Kumbakonam, would not be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Therefore, its claim that the car was used for the purpose of business could not have been brushed aside. Depreciation allowed. Appeal in favour of assessee Income from house property – A.O. had made the addition for rental income based on the report of his Inspector – Held that:- As such a report was never put to the assessee for her rebuttal. Findings of the AO and assertions of the assessee are at loggerheads. Nothing is available on record to verify which of this is correct. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stimate/approximate estimate for building scheme based on line plan. Whereas the Government of India rates are approved for valuation of immovable properties vide Circular No.1671 of 1985 of Central Board of Direct Taxes and against as per instruction dated 13.12.1998. There are only two types of rates available in the State PWD (i.e.) one for Chennai city and the other for Moffusils, whereas the rates for any place can be worked out by multiplying the basic rates by cost index in the case of Government of India rates. When we compare the State PWD plinth area rates of different years we can see that the rates for a particular year is arrived at by adding certain arbitrary percentage increase over the rate approved for previous year, say 10 to 15% etc., whereas in the Government of India plinth area rates, the rates as on the date of requirement for any place can be worked out scientifically by adopting the market rate of basic materials and labour prevalent in the particular place and the particular time. The detailed specifications of different type of building for which the State PWD plinth area rates are issued have not been indicated, while Government of India rates have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O reported in 258 ITR (AT) 82 has to be followed. Particularly, when the property is at Kumbakonam in our view the value must be at State PWD rates and not at CPWD rates. This is the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri M. Selvaraj cited supra. The ld. DR has not denied the fact that the valuation report was obtained after the completion of the original assessment. This made us to take a view that the assessee should be given a valid opportunity so as to assist the Revenue to arrive at the correct valuation of the property in dispute. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who will decide the issue in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that the Assessing Officer should afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It has been clearly held by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal that the property which was situated at Kalyana Mandapam was to be valued based on State PWD rates. Nothing was brought on record by learned D.R. to show that a reduction of 15% on the value based on CPWD rates would give a value at par with St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us, learned A.R. submitted that the claim of depreciation on an asset used for the purpose of business ought not have been disallowed on a flimsy reason. 15. Per contra, learned D.R. supported the order of CIT(Appeals). 16. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. There is no dispute that the assessee had purchased a new car during relevant previous year. The car might have been registered as Non- Transport category vehicle, but, in our opinion this will not preclude an assessee from using it for the purpose of its business. There is no Rule that every vehicle owned in a business, even if used by employees and executives, also should be registered as Non-Transport category vehicle. Just because the car was registered in Chennai and business of the assessee was in Kumbakonam, would not be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Assessee was running a Kalyana Mandapam and had shown income from such Kalyana Mandapam under the head income from business or profession . Therefore, its claim that the car was used for the purpose of business could not have been brushed aside. Apart from this car, assessee was having only a van. There is much strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose of her own residence. He, therefore, upheld the order of A.O. determining the rental value of the said property for computation of income from house property. 21. Now before us, learned A.R., strongly assailing the orders of authorities below, submitted that admittedly, the property where assessee was living and where the property Luz was located, were adjacently situated. The building had collapsed and it was demolished during the relevant previous year. The building could not be occupied from 2005-06 when its roof had collapsed. Thus, the lower authorities considered for house property income a building which was not in existence that too when it was attached to self-occupied residence and became part of such self-occupied property. Further, according to him, A.O. had relied on the report of the Inspector of Income Tax, which was never put to the assessee. 22. Per contra, learned D.R. submitted that assessee was returning rental amounts from Luz in the earlier years. Assessing Officer had verified the claim of the assessee through an Inspector of his Department and it was reported by the Inspector that the property would have reasonably fetched Rs. 17,40,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
