2008 (2) TMI 523 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of Income From House Property u/s 22 - Disallowance on expenses incurred from electric burning for pump motor, common passage and lift - Enhancing the income by unrealized rent - HELD THAT - The rent being charged by the assessee, which represents the measure of its annual value, would, being only decided under the said arrangement, in such a case, stand correspondingly reduced. As such, though the assessee, being entitled only to the deductions in respect of the said expenditure in the computation of the income under the said head of income only in terms of its provisions, would not be entitled to the impugned deductions, we consider that the annual value of its house property be assumed at the reduced value, i.e., after deducting the impugned amounts (from the rental), being only in relation to the expenditure required to be necessarily incurred for the enjoyment/user of the relevant property and, therefore, can only be considered as having been included at the said amount, i.e., at cost, by the two parties in the reckoning/determining of the same (rental). We decide accordingly. We may also add that the standard deduction admissible to the assessee on account of repairs @ 1/6th of the annual value of its house property is in relation to the repairs, whether actually incurred (and again, at a higher or lower value than the said standard amount) or not, by the assessee during the relevant year. However, the impugned sums are not in relation to any repairs to the house property, but for the maintenance of the facilities enjoined therewith, and necessary for its useful enjoyment. Deduction u/s 24(1)(x) being unrealisable rent - Enhancing the income of unrealized rent - We find neither such a plea having been taken by the assessee before the lower authorities, nor their finding(s) in this respect. And which, being purely a factual matter, would need to be ascertained and verified by them before arriving at the conclusion if the mandate of the said rule stands, in fact, satisfied (so that the assessee is exigible to the said deduction) or not; the law in the matter being clear and on which we see no difference or dispute. We, therefore, only consider it fit that the matter is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A), whereat the same has arisen, and adjudication following the due process of law and may, if so deemed fit, seek verification by the AO. We decide accordingly. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure on salary, bonus, and electricity charges against rental income.
2. Direction to follow Tribunal's order and tax additional rent under different sources.
3. Enhancement of income due to unrealized rent and municipal valuation.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure
The appellant claimed deductions for salary, bonus, and electricity charges related to property maintenance against rental income. The AO denied these deductions as not covered under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the expenditure was obligatory and necessary for earning rental income. The tribunal found that while the expenses were not directly attributable to the property itself, they were necessary for tenant enjoyment. Therefore, the annual value of the property should be considered after deducting these expenses. The standard deduction for repairs did not apply here. The tribunal allowed the deductions based on the reduced annual value.

Issue 2: Direction to Tax Additional Rent
The CIT(A) directed to assess additional rent received from tenants under a different income source. The tribunal noted that the appellant did not raise this issue before the CIT(A), and the AO had already assessed the income under the correct section. To ensure fairness, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper consideration and adjudication in accordance with the law.

Issue 3: Enhancement of Income
The CIT(A) directed to include unrealized rent and municipal valuation in the appellant's income. The tribunal observed that the appellant did not raise the unrealized rent issue before lower authorities. The matter was remanded back for proper verification and adjudication. The fourth ground of appeal was dismissed as not pressed during the hearing. Overall, the appellant's appeal was partly allowed, addressing various issues related to income assessment and deductions.