9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute with the fact that though the property was purchased in May, 2006, the occupancy certificate was issued by BMC in December 2006 and the assessee was in possession of property from January 2007. The assessee claimed NIL annual letting value as the property was vacant and further claimed loss by way of interest of Rs. 86,05,179/-. Assessing Officer after discussing the provisions of the Act and case law, adopted 10% of cost as ALV and determined the ALV for the three months at Rs. 37,89,285/- thereby restricting loss to Rs. 59,52,677/-. Assessee was unsuccessful before CIT(A). 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities. The principle was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V. Sonavalae vs. CIT (177 ITR 246) long back, which was being followed in number of later decisions. Even for Wealth tax purposes the same decision was relied upon in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT (323 ITR 104) (Bom.). Therefore, action of Assessing Officer in determining the ALV on the basis of cost of the property can not be upheld. 5. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the contentions of the assessee on the reason that assessee has not furnished the Municipal ratable value to AO in the proceedings. This observation of CIT(A) is factually not correct as the assessee vide letter dated 07.12.2009 to AO (at Page-4 of the letter) clearly stated the Municipal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y can be vacant during whole of the relevant previous year. Hence, both these situations cannot coexist that the property is actually let out also in the relevant previous year, and that the property in the same year is vacant also during whole of the same year. [Para 12] The second interpretation suggested by the revenue was that the property should be actually let out during any time prior to the relevant previous year and then only, it could be said that the property is let out and clause (c) would be applicable. The tense of the verb used prior to the word 'let' is present tense and not past tense. It means that the provisions of clause (c) talk regarding the relevant previous year and not of any earlier period and if that be so, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the property was let out in past, it is a let out property, although the present owner never intended to let out the same. Therefore, it is not at all relevant as to whether the property was let out in past or not. These words do not talk of actual let out also but talk about the intention to let out. If the property is held by the owner for letting out and efforts are made to let it out, that property is covered by clause (c) and this requirement has to be satisfied in each year that the property was being held to let out but remained vacant for whole or part of the year. Above discussion shows that meaning and interpretation of the words 'property is let' cannot be 'property actually let out'. Thus, if a property is held with an inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
