9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m House property".' 2. Facts of the case, in brief are: The assessee is deriving income from "house property" known as Sujan Singh Park Complex. Assessee receives composite rent which constitutes elements of actual rent on account of letting out of house property, electricity charges, salary of watchmen and maintenance staff etc. It is claimed by the assessee that it has been assessed under the head "income from house property" only on the actual rent received for letting out of house property and the other charges like payment of house tax, provision for water, electricity, salary of watchmen and maintenance staff etc. has been excluded from the definition of ALV. Assessee has long history of framing assessment under the head "house p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the appellant was not claiming deduction correctly. After the Finance Act, 2001, the AO stated that only deduction of 30% of the annual value would be allowed. No other expenditure would be allowed. The ITAT is the final fact finding body and its findings are binding unless the case is distinguished on fact. In AY 1997-98, the AO had accepted the method of computation regularly employed by the appellant for its income under the head "House Property" following the decision of ITAT in earlier asstt. Years. In the AY under appeal, the action of the AO in not following the Ld. ITAT without bringing out any discrepancy in the facts cannot be justified. Accordingly it is held that the computation of 'House Property' inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; ** &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Act, 2001 the position of law on this issue is very clear that apart from deduction equal to 30% of the annual value, irrespective of any expenditure incurred by the taxpayer, no other allowance for repairs, maintenance etc. would be allowable. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand vehemently argues that the Assessing Officer has erroneously held that "after the Finance Act, 2001 the provision of law on this issue is very clear that apart from deduction equal to 30% of the annual value irrespective of any expenditure incurred by the tax payer no other allowance for repairs, maintenance etc. would be allowed." Assessing officer has misinterpreted the effect of the amendment from 1st April, 2002 as enhanced the deduction fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e letting property and not other element of composite rent. Assessing officer has misinterpreted the amendment so as to hold that the scope of ALV has been amended which is not correct interpretation of amendment. The Assessing Officer in the guise of amendment has adversely disturbed the proposition which remains unamended and settled in assessee's case since 50 years earlier history. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 for the proposition of consistency when there is no change in facts and circumstances of the issues. 4.2 Ld. Counsel further contends that department itself in years subsequent to A.Y. 2002-03 has allowed these claims of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
