9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) The assessee contended that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT), Special Range, Amritsar, lacked jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that Section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act does not include the Addl. CIT in the definition of an "Assessing Officer." The jurisdiction was initially with the ITO, Ward-2(2), Amritsar, and it was transferred under Section 127 by the CIT (Central), Ludhiana, to the Jt. CIT, Special Range, Amritsar. The assessee objected to this transfer, arguing that the return of income was below Rs. 5 lakhs, and thus the jurisdiction should not have been transferred. The Department argued that Section 2(28C) includes the Addl. CIT in the definition of "Jt. CIT," and the CIT (Central), Ludhiana, had validly transferred jurisdiction. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention, stating that the Addl. CIT and Jt. CIT have the same powers and functions. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the jurisdiction was validly assigned, and the Addl. CIT, Special Range, Amritsar, was competent to pass the assessment order. The Tribunal also referred to Section 124(3) and (4), which restricts challenging the jurisdiction of the AO after the assessment order is passed. Issue No. 2: Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the Property The assessee argued that the flat at 309, Abhimanyu Apartments, Patparganj, New Delhi, was incomplete and uninhabitable due to the lack of electricity and water supply, and thus its ALV should be 'nil.' The AO disagreed, stating that Section 22 of the IT Act charges "any building or land" to tax, irrespective of its habitability. The AO assessed the ALV at Rs. 76,258 based on the cost of the flat and the cost indexation. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, rejecting the assessee's reliance on the Bombay High Court decision in Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the flat was indeed incomplete and uninhabitable during the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal referred to the Orissa High Court's definition of a "house" and the Bombay High Court's ruling that a property must be inherently capable of being let out to attract the charge under Section 22. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities below did not properly verify the assessee's claims about the flat's condition. Given the lack of essential amenities, the flat could not reasonably be expected to be let out. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition of the ALV to the assessee's income. Separate Judgments: For ITA No. 491/Asr/2001 (AY 1998-99), the appeal was partly allowed, and for ITA No. 386/Asr/2002 (AY 1999-2000), the appeal was allowed, with both orders setting aside the additions made by the authorities below. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
