2016 (2) TMI 1145 - AT - Income Tax

Method of computation of ALV - AO invoked the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act on the premise that the annual value of the property deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year therefore the municipal valuation is not binding upon the Department - Held that - CIT (A) has rightly relied on the binding judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT 2009 (1) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal Authorities shall be the yard stick. It is also noted that in the cases of Shri Satyapal Jain (husband of the assessee) for A.Y. 2006-07 and other family members the amount is to be taxed u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act and would be rateable at municipal value. In view of this uncontroverted position appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Municipal rateable value determination for assessment year 2010-11.
2. Validity of relying on municipal rateable value for determining annual letting value.

Issue 1: Municipal rateable value determination for assessment year 2010-11

The case involved an appeal by both the Revenue and the assessee against the assessment order for the assessment year 2010-11. The key contention was regarding the municipal rateable value of the premises at Central Garden Complex and Creative Industrial Centre Cooperative Society. The assessee challenged the assessment order, which confirmed the municipal rateable value at a higher amount than what was offered by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the previous year's decision and the relevant legal principles. The Revenue argued that the municipal rateable value should not be the sole determinant of the annual letting value. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (A) based on the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.

Issue 2: Validity of relying on municipal rateable value for determining annual letting value

The second issue revolved around the validity of relying on municipal rateable value for determining the annual letting value. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's declared net annual value based on municipal rateable value, invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer argued that the municipal valuation was not reasonable for determining the property's reasonable rent. The Tribunal, however, noted that consistency in decisions is crucial and upheld the CIT (A)'s reliance on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that unless contrary facts are presented, decisions should maintain consistency. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the importance of judicial discipline and consistency in legal interpretations.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, in the cited judgment, addressed the issues related to municipal rateable value determination and the validity of relying on municipal rateable value for determining the annual letting value. The Tribunal upheld the decisions based on legal principles and the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing the significance of consistency and judicial discipline in legal interpretations.