2002 (10) TMI 62 - HC - Income Tax

Annual letting out value of the property - Whether, on the finding of the Tribunal that it is not the case of the Revenue that standard rent of the premises in question was more than Rs. 10,800 per annum is based on any relevant material or perverse? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the annual municipal value of the property during the relevant period, the finding of the Tribunal that the annual letting value for the purpose of section 23(1) should not be taken at a figure of higher than Rs. 10,800 is based on a correct principle of law?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal's finding regarding the standard rent being Rs. 10,800 per annum is based on relevant material or perverse.
2. Correct principle of law for determining the annual letting value under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Justification of the Tribunal in estimating the annual letting value at Rs. 10,800.
4. Justification of the Tribunal in not upholding the Assessing Officer's determination of the annual letting value at Rs. 54,000.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tribunal's Finding on Standard Rent:
The first issue questions if the Tribunal's finding that the standard rent was not more than Rs. 10,800 per annum is based on relevant material or is perverse. The Tribunal noted without any material that the Revenue did not claim the standard rent was more than Rs. 10,800. The court found this unjustifiable and perverse, stating it was without material. However, this finding does not alter the net effect of the reference since the actual rent received by the assessee remains the basis for valuation under section 23(1)(a).

2. Correct Principle for Determining Annual Letting Value:
The principal legal controversy revolves around whether the annual value of a property should be computed based on actual rental received or a higher potential annual value if the property were vacant. Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act stipulates that the annual value is either the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year or the actual rent received if it exceeds the expected value. The court held that for tenanted properties, the actual rent received should be considered the annual value, not a notional higher rent. This interpretation prevents taxation on notional income, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT.

3. Justification of Tribunal's Estimation:
The Tribunal's estimation of the annual letting value at Rs. 10,800 was justified based on the genuine lease deed of 1962. The court affirmed that the property should be valued at the actual rent received, as the deed was not found to be a sham. The court emphasized that section 23(1)(a) applies to both vacant properties and those under a continuing lease, and the actual rent received is the best evidence of the property's annual value.

4. Non-upholding of Assessing Officer's Determination:
The Tribunal's decision not to uphold the Assessing Officer's determination of the annual letting value at Rs. 54,000 was justified. The court concluded that the municipal valuation was not the correct yardstick for determining the annual value under section 23(1)(a). The actual rent received, Rs. 10,800, was deemed the correct measure, as it reflects the genuine rental income from the property.

Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in favor of the Revenue, finding the Tribunal's observation about the standard rent perverse. However, the second, third, and fourth questions were answered in favor of the assessee, affirming that the annual value should be based on the actual rent received. The Tribunal's order was largely upheld, except for the deletion of its finding on the standard rent.

← Previous Next →