TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression ―the property or any part of the property is let as used in clause (c) of section 23(1) does not mean that for availing the benefit of the said sub–clause the property must have been let out earlier. The Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2007 (5) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI) has also held that the expression ― property is let under clause (c) of section 23(1) does not mean that the property should have been actually let in the relevant previous year or during any time prior to the relevant previous year. But it will mean the property is intended to be let out. Thus we hold that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 23(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any is stated to be a re seller in chemicals, dyes, solvents, plastics and adhesives. For the assessment year 2012 13, the assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of ₹ 10,76,248. In the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer while verifying the return of income filed by the assessee noticed that it has shown income of ₹ 50,229, under the head income from house property. From the Balance Sheet of the company, the Assessing Officer found that it is in possession of two flats valued at ₹ 1.33 crore and ₹ 8.62 crore respectively. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to furnish the full details of flats owned by it. After verifying the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 160 per sq.ft. In the aforesaid manner, the Assessing Officer computed net house property income in respect of both the flats at ₹ 28,80,814 and ₹ 48,38,400 respectively and added back to the income of the assessee. On the basis of assessment completed as aforesaid for assessment year 2012 13, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete assessment for the other assessment years under appeal determining the ALV in identical manner. Being aggrieved of the assessment orders so passed the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. 5. In the course of hearing before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2012 13, the assessee advanced arguments contesting the ALV determined by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in ACIT v/s Prabha Singhi, ITA no.2217/Del./ 2010, dated 18th September 2012, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that in respect of both the properties, income from house property will have to be taken as nil and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Similar directions were issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of other assessment years under appeal as well. 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted that since the properties were not let out earlier, the Assessing Officer has rightly worked out the ALV under section 23(1)(a) of the Act. She submitted, the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained under section 133(6) with regard to the rental income received in respect of some other flats in the same area has determined the ALV in terms of section 23(1)(a) of the Act, which provides that the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be the same for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year in other words, the market value of the rent received / receivable. However, the issue which is to be decided is, when the properties were admittedly remained vacant during the relevant previous year, whether the assessee can avail deduction under section 23(1)(c) of the Act of ALV determined under section 23(1)(a) of the Act. For the better clarity, sub clause (c) of section 23(1) of the Act is reprod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le or not. In this regard, the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative is, since the properties in dispute were not let out earlier, the assessee will not be eligible to avail the benefit of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. However, we are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned Departmental Representative. The expression ―the property or any part of the property is let as used in clause (c) of section 23(1) does not mean that for availing the benefit of the said sub clause the property must have been let out earlier. The Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also held that the expression ―property is let under clause (c) of section 23(1) does not mean that the property sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
