9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1632 - AT - Income TaxAnnual value determination - Estimating the value of the property known as Hicon Property - ignoring valuation carried out by approved Valuer M/s. Patwardhan & Associates - vacancy allowance eligibility - Held that - In case the property or part thereof was vacant during the period, the proportion deduction should be allowed from the sum on which the property might reasonably be let out from year to year. We find that it is the plea of the assessee that due to inherent defects, the flat could not be let out. Hence, the flat remained vacant. Hence, the assessee has claimed benefit of section 23(1)(c) which duly permits deduction in this regard. The assessee should be granted vacancy allowance. However, as conceded by the ld. Counsel of the assessee and also accepted in the grounds of appeal, the assessee is agreeable to offer a sum of ₹ 11,83,723/- for taxation in this regard. We accept this proposal and modify the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of Annual Ratable Value (ARV) of the property. 2. Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 3. Consideration of defects and unauthorized construction in the property. 4. Granting of vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Admissibility of additional evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Estimation of Annual Ratable Value (ARV) of the Property: The primary issue revolves around the correct estimation of the ARV of the property known as "Hicon Property." The Assessing Officer (AO) had estimated the ARV at ?81,08,802 based on 7% of the investment value, which was subsequently reduced to ?56,76,162 after standard deductions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed with this estimation and instead determined an ARV of ?50,40,000 based on a comparable rental rate of another flat in the same building at ?1.75 lakhs per month. 2. Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act: The AO and the Hicon Society had conflicting views on the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act to the property. The AO noted that the Assessee did not provide a standard rent fixed under the Act, while the Society claimed the Act was inapplicable. The CIT(A) supported the Society's claim, stating that no standard rent was fixed by the local authority. 3. Consideration of Defects and Unauthorized Construction in the Property: The Assessee argued that the property had defects and unauthorized construction, which prevented it from being let out. The CIT(A) acknowledged minor unauthorized constructions but deemed them insufficient to prevent the property from being rented. The CIT(A) dismissed letters from real estate agents as self-serving and unsupported by evidence. 4. Granting of Vacancy Allowance under Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The Assessee sought vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c), claiming the property could not be let out due to inherent defects. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, stating the defects were minor and did not justify the property remaining vacant. However, the ITAT accepted the Assessee's plea for vacancy allowance, citing the necessity to remove defects and subsequent alterations costing over ?50 lakhs, which supported the claim that the property was not lettable in its original condition. 5. Admissibility of Additional Evidence: The Assessee submitted additional evidence, including ledger accounts for construction expenses, floor plans, architect certificates, property tax bills, and rectification deeds. The ITAT admitted this additional evidence, finding it relevant to establish the Assessee's claim regarding the property's condition and subsequent alterations. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the Assessee deserved vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) due to the necessity of removing defects and making alterations to the property. The ITAT accepted the Assessee's offer to tax a sum of ?11,83,723 as computed by the Assessee’s valuer, modifying the CIT(A)'s order accordingly. The Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2018.
|
