9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ratable value of the properties as determined by the Municipal Authorities is the yardstick while failing to consider that Section 23(l)(a) mandates that the annual value is deemed to be the sum for which the property might be expected to be let from year to year.? (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law ,the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had made local enquiries to determine the sum for which the properties could be expected to be let for the year as per Section 23(l)(a)of the IT Act,1961? (iii) On the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed detailed report dated 23.12.2010 on the basis of which the rental of Rs. 42 per sq. ft. was taken by the AO and the ALV was worked out for the flat at Rs. 1,61,57,124/- in A.Y. 2009-10. The AO proposed the same basis to be taken in the A.Y. 2010-11 subject to normal increase of 10% in the rental value. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee objected to the increase @ 10% in the rental value on the ground that this is just an estimation of rent and increase may not be possible in every year. However, without prejudice admitted that the amount adopted in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 may be adopted in A.Y. 2012-13. The AO also referred to the rental rates as per various websites in the nearby areas for the month of March 2015 and calculated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of the said value and the resultant value will be the ALV of these properties in the relevant assessment years. Thus the earlier Ld. CIT(A) determined the ALV of the flat at central garden complex for A.Y. 2010-11 at Rs. 17,03,369/- as increased by 10% (5% annually) and thus calculated the present ALV at Rs. 18,73,706/-. 6. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A) reducing the ALV from Rs. 2,77,17,360/- by AO and the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the ALV at Rs. 20,81,895/- computed by the Ld. CIT(A). Para 7.4.12 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order is reproduced herein under: "7.4.12 The records reveal that my Ld. Predecessor, vide his order dated 28.02.2014 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-41 7DCCC-39/1T-409/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to re-compute the income form house property as per above directions. Hence, the Ground No. 2 raised in appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED, as indicated above." 7. The Ld. A.R., at the outset, submitted before the Bench that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the various decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal and also the jurisdictional High Court. The Ld. A.R. submitted that where the property is not occupied or rented out, in that case the ALV has to be determined on the basis of ratable value by the municipal authorities and not at the market rent. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions as under: 1. DCIT v. Laxmi Jain in ITA No. 2118/Mum/2012 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipal authorities in A.Y. 2006-07 as increased by 5% every year. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor in A.Y. 2010-11 took the ALV at Rs. 17,03,369/- and finally the determined the current ALV at Rs. 20,81,895/- after making necessary adjustments for the annual increase. Thus the dispute before us is only with regard to the ascertainment of ALV where the flat was vacant during the year. In the case of DCIT vs. Laxmi Jain in ITA No.2118/M/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 High Court held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be made on the basis of municipal ratable value an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals of Assessee and Revenue) 13. Since we have already decided the issue in ITA No.3664/M/2017 and 3844/M/2017 (supra) wherein we have held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be computed on the basis of municipal ratable value thereby dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing the appeal of the assessee. Following our decision in ITA No.3664 & 3844/M/2017, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and allow the appeal of the assessee. ITA No.445/M/2018 and ITA No.6885/2017 AY 2013-14 14. Since we have already decided the issue in ITA No.3664/M/2017 and 3844/M/2017 (supra) wherein we have held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be computed on the basis of municipal ratable value thereby dismissing the appeal of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
