9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1149 - AT - Income TaxALV of the house property computation - Held that - ALV of the house property should be as per the rateable value fixed by Municipal Authority. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the fact that in the immediately preceding year 2010-11, the ALV has been determined at ₹ 4,63,651/-, enhanced the same by 5% and worked out to ₹ 4,86,834/-. The detailed reasoning given by CIT(A) is as per material on record, therefore, do not require any interference on our part.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Annual Lettable Value (ALV) of vacant property. 2. Acceptance of Municipal Rateable Value versus market value for ALV computation. 3. Validity and reliability of evidence used by the Assessing Officer (AO). Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Annual Lettable Value (ALV) of Vacant Property: The primary issue in this case revolves around the determination of the ALV of the assessee's vacant property at Central Garden Complex, Chunabhatti, Mumbai. The assessee declared an ALV of ?3,86,376/- based on the Municipal Rateable Value. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) recalculated the ALV at ?68,36,502/- using market value. 2. Acceptance of Municipal Rateable Value versus Market Value for ALV Computation: The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the Municipal Rateable Value for ALV determination. The CIT(A) enhanced the Municipal Rateable Value by 5%, resulting in an ALV of ?4,86,834/-. The CIT(A) referenced various judicial pronouncements and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography, which upheld the Municipal Rateable Value as a safe guide unless cogent and reliable material suggests otherwise. 3. Validity and Reliability of Evidence Used by the Assessing Officer (AO): The AO's determination of ALV based on market value was supported by an inspector's report and data from websites like 99acres.com and magicbricks.com. However, the CIT(A) found the inspector's report and website data to be unreliable and general in nature, lacking specific comparable instances. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO did not conduct fresh enquiries as directed and relied on outdated reports, which were previously deemed insufficient by the ITAT. Key Observations and Rulings: - Inspector’s Report and Website Data: The CIT(A) and ITAT found the inspector’s report and website data to be vague and not credible enough to discard the Municipal Rateable Value. The inspector’s report lacked specific details such as comparable properties, area, amenities, and public utilities, making it unreliable. - Judicial Precedents: The CIT(A) and ITAT relied on judicial precedents, particularly the Bombay High Court's decision in Tip Top Typography, which stated that Municipal Rateable Value is a safe guide for determining ALV unless there is cogent and reliable material to discard it. The ITAT also referenced its own decisions in similar cases involving the assessee’s family members, where Municipal Rateable Value was upheld for vacant properties. - CIT(A)’s Decision: The CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the Municipal Rateable Value for ALV determination, enhanced by 5% annually. This decision was based on the reasoning that the AO failed to provide new, reliable material to justify a higher ALV based on market value. - ITAT’s Confirmation: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. The ITAT confirmed that the ALV should be based on the Municipal Rateable Value, enhanced by 5%, resulting in an ALV of ?4,86,834/- for the relevant assessment year. Conclusion: Both the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed. The ITAT confirmed that the ALV of the vacant property should be based on the Municipal Rateable Value, enhanced by 5%, as determined by the CIT(A). The AO's reliance on the inspector’s report and website data was deemed insufficient to discard the Municipal Rateable Value. The decision reinforced the principle that Municipal Rateable Value is a reliable guide for ALV determination unless contradicted by substantial evidence.
|
