2012 (3) TMI 642 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order dated 16.02.2011 passed by CIT(Appeals)-3, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

Grounds of Appeal:
1. The appellant contested that the order of the ITAT for the Assessment Year 1996-97 should be applicable for determining the Income from House property for the present appeal.
2. Discrepancy noted in the application of Rent Control Act for the Assessment Year 1996-97.
3. Applicability of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for the present assessment year.
4. Objections raised by the appellant for estimating the Annual Letting Value at Rs. 15,000/- per month for each house property.
5. Challenge against the Assessing Officer's arbitrary estimation of Annual Letting Value at Rs. 15,000/- per month without scientific basis.

Facts:
The appellant, a Senior Advocate, declared income from various properties including office at Brightland Building, Mumbai, residential flats at different locations. The Assessing Officer estimated rent at Rs. 15,000/- per month for each property, leading to a dispute.

Assessing Officer's View:
Based on judicial precedents, the Assessing Officer determined the rent for the properties at Rs. 15,000/- per month, considering market rates and municipal valuation.

CIT(Appeals) Decision:
The CIT(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, citing a change in the Self Occupied Property status and the need to apply Rent Control Act provisions. The appellant's contentions were not accepted.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued for following the ITAT's order for the Assessment Year 1996-97, as there were no material changes in facts or law provisions. The municipal valuation remained consistent.

ITAT Decision:
After reviewing the orders and precedents, ITAT found that the municipal valuation remained the same as in the previous assessment year. The ITAT order for the Assessment Year 1996-97 was deemed applicable, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the head income from house property was deleted. The income declared by the appellant was accepted.

Judges:
- Shiri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Hon'ble President
- Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member