9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n monthly rent of Rs. 4,7000 w.e.f. 24th Aug., 1979 and one flat floor (out of 2 flats) w.e.f. 23rd July, 1981 (after the close of accounting year under consideration on 31st March, 1980. 3. On these fact is ITO assessed the income from basement and ground floor for the period of 7 months and 7 days without taking ALV for the whole year. In respect of first floor which had remained vacant throughout the accounting year ending31st March, 1980. The ITO estimated the ALV at Rs. 43,000 ad allowed 1/6th for repairs but did not allow any vacancy allowance through the first floor was vacant throughout the accounting year. 4. He held that vacancy allowance was allowable under s. 24(1)(ix) when the property was let out during the accounting year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held to be sufficient that the property was let out at any time prior to the accounting period under consideration and that s.24(1)(ix) only lays down the condition that "Where the property is let" and does not specify it must be let out in the year under consideration. CIT (A) observed that as the property in question including first floor had been let out in preceding assessment year upto 30th Nov., 1978, therefore, deduction under s. 24(1)(ix)was available to the assessee. We find that CIT (A) has wholly mis-directed himself in taking the above view. Supreme Court in Liquidator of Mahmudabad Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 192 : (1980) 124 ITR 31, 39 (SC) upheld decision of Calcutta High Court in (1972) 28 ITR 470 (Cal) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of Supreme Court's observation extracted above in Mahmudabad Properties to the effect that the letting out of the property has to be in the accounting year under consideration and not in any earlier accounting period. The matter is now out beyond doubt by full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar M. Shah (1981) 130 ITR 118 (Ker) (FB) where it was held that the property must be vacant during a part of the year and not for the entire year and not allowance for vacancy can be allowed under s. 24(1)(ix) if the property was vacant for the whole year. Similar view was taken by Chaturvedi and Pithisaria Income-tax law, 3rd Edn. Vol. I at p. 757-8 and Sampath Iyengar on Law of Income-tax, 7th Edn. Vol. I p. 1046. Kanga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
