9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by the department in the past, the CWT(A) has wrongly upheld this disallowance which kindly be deleted." "W. T.A. 491/Del/87 (1980-81): 1. That the CWT(A) has erred in upholding the assessed value of residential property at F 1/3 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi at Rs. 2,89,112 after wrongly taking the Act of self occupied portion at the rent received for the let out portion as against the ALV on the basis of rateable value assessed by the Municipal Corporation or the standard rent since rent capitalisation method has been adopted by the IAC(A). 2. That the CWT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of liabilities and loans of the assessee at Rs. 1,90,078 and in view of the fact that all loans and liabilities are old one's and have been utilised in assets taxable to wealth-tax, a position accepted by the department in the past, the CWT(A) has wrongly upheld this disallowance which kindly be deleted." 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material brought to our notice. 3. The first contention raised in both the years is about the valuation of property No. F1/3 Hauz Khas. The assessee decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icipal Corporation Act is mentioned but that appears to be a mistake and it should be the Delhi Rent Control, Act because standard rent is not determined under the Municipal Corporation Act. In Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that where Rent Control Act applies, the standard rent determinable under the provisions of Rent Control Law would be the basis of the annual value even though standard rent is not determined. In Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC [1980] 122 ITR 700, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in respect of a building governed by the provisions of rent control legislation, it cannot reasonably be expected that the landlord would be receiving rent higher than the standard rent prescribed under the law. According to this ruling though the landlord may actually be receiving rent that is higher than the standard rent, yet such actual excess rent received cannot be deemed to be the rent at which a landlord may reasonably expect to let out the property. This is based on the presumption that a landlord would abide by the law. 7. In the case before us no evidence has been placed before us to show what is the annual letting val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. The learned counsel did not point out how it is wrong. The second ground too will, therefore, stand rejected. 9. Appeals dismissed. Per Chander - I have very carefully gone through the order proposed by my learned Brother. However, with due respect, I do not subscribe to the various observations made by him with regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish and Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor mentioned in para 5 of the proposed order with regard to valuation of property. To my mind, it is a very simple case and fully covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of A.K Tandon wherein on a difference of opinion of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that in the case of partly self-occupied and partly tenanted property, if the WTO adopted the rent capitalisation method, then the annual letting value of self-occupied portion should also be taken at the value as determined by the Municipal Corporation. 2. Since, however, the necessary particulars relating to the application of this principle have not been properly brought out by the authorities below, I am of the opinion that on this point the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsider this method of valuation as proper. According-to him the latest rent received from the property was to be considered for valuation. He also found that for the let out portion, the rent charged was Rs. 1250 per month. He also found that the area under self-occupation was more than the area under the let out portion. On this premise he determined the a.l.v. for the self occupied portion also at Rs. 1250 p.m. He has taken the a.l.v. at Rs. 150 per month for the Barsati Floor and by this process the total a.l.v. was fixed at Rs. 2650 per month. After allowing for repairs and collection charges, the net a.l.v. was fixed at Rs. 23,129 and capitalising it at 121/2 times, the multiplier stipulated in Rule 1BB, value of the house was fixed at Rs. 2,89,112. This is supposed to be the value even as per Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. 2. The assessee was aggrieved by this valuation and appealed before the C.W.T. (Appeals) who confirmed the valuation adopted by the W.T.O. Even though the order of W.T.O. suggests that the values adopted are by applying the provisions of Rule I BB, the C.W.T. (Appeals)'s order shows that the application of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules would not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lave, New Delhi as determined by the W.T.O. should be confirmed or the matter should be restored to the W.T.O. for fresh determination? 2. Whether, in the case of a property to which the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act apply, the standard rent as determined or determinable under the said Act or the annual letting value as determined under the Delhi Municipal Corpn. Act should be the basis of determining the fair market value by the rent capitalisation method." 5. I have heard the learned assessee's counsel Shri D.D. Vyas and also the learned D.R. Shri Subhash Kumar. It is pointed out and very rightly by the learned counsel for the assessee that both the Members have agreed that the relevant particulars were not on the file. Therefore, the proper course would be to set aside the matter to the file of the W.T.O. and direct him to re-determine the value of the property in the light of the directions given by the Supreme Court and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of A.K Tandon which according to him only an application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned D.R. also has no objection for the adoption of this course because both the Members h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
