9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1478 - AT - Income TaxDetermining the ALV of residential house lying vacant during the year u/s 23(1 )(a) r.w.s 23(4)(b) - deemed income under the head Income from House Property - Held that - The fact that the said property has been let out by the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year for 9 months is a fact. Thus the property has been let out in the earlier years is not disputed. The fact that due to a recession in the market it could not be let out is consistently claimed. CBDT Circular No.14 of 2001-252 ITR Statute para 29 unambiguously explains that the said amendment was brought out to rationalize the provisions of the Act so as to simplify determination of ALV. Considering the facts which have not been disputed and the above provision of law, we find that in the light of the judicial precedent cited namely ACIT, Delhi vs Prabha Sanghi paI 2013 (1) TMI 18 - ITAT DELHI ; Kamal Mishra vs ITO, Ward 31(2) 2007 (8) TMI 484 - ITAT DELHI and DLF Office Developers v ACIT, Delhi 2008 (4) TMI 530 - ITAT DELHI and Prem Sudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 2007 (5) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI and noting that no contrary view has been cited by the Revenue despite more than ample opportunity, we find that the appeal of the assessee has to be allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) of a residential house under Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation of Section 23(1)(c) regarding ALV when a property remains vacant due to market conditions. 3. Application of judicial precedents in determining ALV for a vacant property. Issue 1: Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) The appellant challenged the correctness of the CIT(A) order regarding the ALV of a residential house in New Delhi lying vacant during the assessment year. The appellant argued that the ALV should be determined at Nil as declared by them, while the CIT(A) assessed it at ?12,00,000 as deemed income under the head "Income from House Property." Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 23(1)(c) The appellant contended that the property remained vacant due to market conditions, and therefore, the ALV should be considered Nil under Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant cited judicial precedents to support their claim, emphasizing that the property's vacancy was a result of the market recession, making it eligible for Nil ALV. Issue 3: Application of Judicial Precedents The tribunal considered the facts that the property had been let out in previous years but remained vacant during the assessment year due to market conditions. The tribunal referred to judicial precedents such as ACIT vs. Prabha Sanghi and Kamal Mishra vs. ITO to support the appellant's argument that the property's ALV should be Nil in such circumstances. The tribunal noted that the Revenue did not present any contrary view or distinguish the cited cases, leading to the decision to allow the appeal of the assessee. In the judgment, the tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) and the factual circumstances of the case to determine the ALV of the vacant property. The tribunal found that the property's vacancy was due to market conditions and not misuse of the provisions, as argued by the AO. Relying on judicial precedents and the legislative intent behind Section 23(1)(c), the tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal should be allowed, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and determining the ALV of the property as Nil.
|
