2021 (1) TMI 643 - AT - Income Tax

Income from house property under section 23(1)(a) - rental income exceeded the standard rent and municipal ratable value of that area - HELD THAT - As relying on assessee s own case wherein Assessee has not been able to consider the Judgment of TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY 2014 (8) TMI 356 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein expounded that the municipal ratable value cannot be brushed aside unless the AO is able to show that there was effort on the part of the assessee to show lesser rent. In this regard we note that Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court decision is binding upon the Tribunal - Accordingly in our considered opinion the issue in this regard needs to be examined on the touchstone of Hon ble Jurisdictional high Court decision - Thus we restore the disputed issue to the file of the A.O. for limited purpose with similar directions to examine the issue and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Addition of income from house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Sec. 22 and 23 on the facts of the case.
3. Entitlement to deduction for vacancy allowance u/s. 23(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Validity of the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Issue 1: Addition of income from house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of income from a house property under section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated notional income from the property as it remained vacant and no rent was received after the lease expired. The AO applied the provisions of Sec. 23(1) of the Act and determined the income from the property, leading to a total income of &8377; 39,83,81,500/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action based on previous decisions against the assessee. The Tribunal considered the matter and referred to previous cases where similar issues were addressed. Following judicial precedence, the Tribunal restored the disputed issue to the AO's file for further examination, directing to allow the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Applicability of Sec. 22 and 23 on the facts of the case:
The AO applied the provisions of Sec. 22 and 23 of the Act to calculate notional income from the house property. The assessee contended that the rental income exceeded the standard rent and municipal ratable value of the area. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and directed the AO to reexamine the issue based on the judicial precedence, providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present their case.

Issue 3: Entitlement to deduction for vacancy allowance u/s. 23(1)(c) of the Act:
The assessee claimed entitlement to deduction for vacancy allowance u/s. 23(1)(c) of the Act as the property remained vacant throughout the year. The Tribunal considered the submissions and directed the AO to reevaluate the matter in line with previous judicial decisions, ensuring the assessee's right to vacancy allowance is duly considered.

Issue 4: Validity of the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A):
The assessee challenged the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as arbitrary and based on conjecture, asserting it was bad in law. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, referred to previous cases and decided to restore the issue to the AO's file for further examination, following judicial precedents and allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

In summary, the judgment addressed various issues related to the addition of income from a house property under specific sections of the Income Tax Act, applicability of relevant provisions, entitlement to deductions, and the validity of the decisions made by the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal, guided by previous judicial decisions, directed the AO to reexamine the matter and granted relief to the assessee for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →