2014 (11) TMI 1157 - AT - Income Tax

Method of computation of ALV - Held that - See 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. In any case, the percentage of investment in the impugned properties is no basis for arriving at the ALV of the properties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of rateable value by municipal authorities.
2. Correct determination of annual letting value (ALV) of house property.

Issue 1: Determination of rateable value by municipal authorities:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) regarding the rateable value as determined by the municipal authorities. The Revenue contended that the ALV should not solely rely on the rateable value determined by the municipal authorities, citing previous cases where the annual letting value was considered differently. The AO had rejected the assessee's computation of ALV based on rateable values and instead quantified the ALVs based on investment percentages in the properties. However, the CIT(A) upheld the assessee's rateable value, relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in a specific case. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found that the CIT(A) correctly relied on the High Court judgment, stating that the percentage of investment is not a valid basis for determining ALV. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision based on the binding nature of the High Court judgment.

Issue 2: Correct determination of annual letting value (ALV) of house property:
The second issue involved the correct determination of the ALV of the house property. The AO had rejected the assessee's computation based on rateable values and used the inspector's report on comparable rent to determine the ALV. The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's method and upheld the assessee's rateable value. During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the ALV determined by the municipal authorities is not the sole factor and can be ignored if it does not reflect the true ALV. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel heavily relied on the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and orders of the Revenue Authorities, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the binding High Court judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the percentage of investment in the properties is not a valid basis for determining ALV and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the determination of rateable value by municipal authorities and the correct determination of the annual letting value of the house property. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the binding nature of the High Court judgment and rejecting the Revenue's arguments based on investment percentages.