1984 (1) TMI 60 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to ITO's order disallowing vacancy allowance.
2. Failure of ITO to follow statutory provision.
3. Availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal.
4. Invocation of writ jurisdiction by the petitioner.
5. Consideration of the principle regarding unavailability of alternative remedy due to limitation.
6. Direction to quash ITO's order and recompute income from house property.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the ITO's order disallowing vacancy allowance for the assessment year 1972-73. The AAC accepted the petitioner's grounds and directed the ITO to recompute the income from house property, but the ITO's recomputation did not follow the statutory provision as per s. 24(ix) of the I.T. Act. The petitioner contended that the ITO failed to comply with the AAC's directions, citing the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO. The court noted that the ITO did not adhere to the statutory provision in fixing the vacancy allowance.

Regarding the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal, the respondent argued that the petitioner should not have invoked the writ jurisdiction, relying on cases like Abhai Ram Gopi Nath v. CIT and CIT v. Seth Manicklal Fomra. However, the petitioner cited the principle from the Division Bench judgment in CTO v. Jasodalal Ghosal (P.) Ltd., stating that if the writ petition was entertained due to a rule being issued and the alternative remedy became unavailable due to limitation, relief should not be denied on a technical ground. The court found this principle applicable to the case.

After considering the submissions, the court directed the quashing of the ITO's order and instructed the ITO to determine the vacancy allowance afresh in accordance with the law. The court made the rule absolute, allowing the respondents to recompute the income from house property based on the AAC's observations. No costs were awarded in the judgment.