9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ichever is higher and not the annual letting value on the basis of comparable instances as adopted by the Assessing Officer, though the property under consideration was not covered by the Rent Control Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to verify the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Authorities and if the same is less than the actual rent received, then the actual rent received should be taxed?" Some of the appeals have been admitted but we shall proceed to Admit the rest of them on the above mentioned substantial questions of law. The Respondents therein waive service. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Similarly, there are appeals in which arguments were canvassed on the basis that the rent control legislation operating in the State is applicable but the parties are not at idem on the quantum of rent. Therefore, the proceedings in that behalf and particularly for fixation of standard rent were not initiated under the rent control legislation. Therefore, the Assessing Officer took upon himself the responsibility of fixing the fair/standard re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the Commissioner's order is at Annexure-C. 4. The assessee, thereafter, carried the matter in appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and by an order dated 31st March, 2010 the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal directed him to verify the rateable value fixed by the Municipal authorities and if the same is less than Rs. 3,60,000/-, then, the actual rent received should be taxed. Copy of this order of the Tribunal is annexed as Annexure-E to this memo of appeal. 5. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal that the revenue has approached this Court in appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act raising the above substantial questions of law. 6. Mr. Chhotaray, learned counsel, appearing for the revenue in these appeals submitted that the language of section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short the I.T. Act is clear. That has no relation to the rateable value determined by the municipal corporation. It has also no relation to any deposits or security amount obtained by the assessee like the respondents. Therefore, the attempt is to depress the rent. When such attempts are noticed, then, it can never be intended by the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocal enquiry including from brokers and refer to the agreements between parties. He can also refer to the valuation by the State Government and for the purposes of recovery of State taxes. Mr. Chhotaray submits that there is a tendency to accept deposit of a hefty sum. Even a nominal rent which is higher than the municipal determination is taken as the basis for such security deposit. Mr. Chhotaray submits that if the intent of the legislature was to make an assessment by municipal valuation alone, then, that would have been clearly spelled out in law. Mr. Chhotaray, therefore, referred to Rule 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Wealth Tax Rules in this behalf. 8. Mr. Chhotaray also submitted that the Tribunal has solely relied upon its own order in the case of Park Paper Industries Ltd. which is delivered in the case of a self-occupied property. At the same time, the Tribunal failed to note that there is a contrary view taken in the case of the Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Baker Technical Services Private Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.5262, 5264/Mum/2006. In such circumstances, Mr. Chhotaray submits that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 9. Mr. Chhotaray also submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the second step is to refer to section 23(1)(b) which provides that if the actual rent received is more than the fair rental value determined under section 23(1)(a), then the actual rent received would be deemed to be the annual value. It was pointed out that in the captioned case, there is no applicability of section 23(1)(b) since the annual value, as determined by the Assessing Officer, is much more than the actual rent received. 13. Mr. Chhotaray further submits that annual value is a statutory hypothetical figure. The provisions of section 23(1)(a) mandates the Assessing Officer to determine this value. It simply states that the annual value is the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. It does not speak anything else. The Assessing Officer determines the annual value by taking various factors into account. He may take recourse to different recognized methods. One important method is to find the prevailing market rate of rent in the area. In order to find it out, he may make inquiry with let out properties in the locality, make enquiry with the brokers, use internet for knowing the prevailing rate in the area, take the help of a va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso most of the returns are accepted without scrutiny and unless there is clear exposition of law, the assessee would show low income from house property which will lead to loss of revenue. It would be unfair to require the Income Tax Department to adopt the municipal valuation even if it notices gross and glaring undervaluation in municipal valuation. The Income Tax Department has no control over the municipal valuation. Under the law, there is no reference to the municipal valuation. There is no case for introducing the element of municipal valuation in the income tax law. The process of municipal valuation of different states is different. The local authorities have their own priorities. For example, Mumbai has now switched over to the capital value system where the municipal value is at a certain percentage of the capital value of the property. Properties with area up to 500 sq. ft. would not pay the higher rate. The concept of determining the fair rent of the property is no longer there. Therefore, there would no longer be any commonality in the wordings of the provisions of the section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of the Municipal Act which is the main pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following decisions in support of his above contentions. (1) Bhagawan Dass Jain v. Union of India and Others; [1981] 128 ITR 315 (2) Sakarlal Balabhai v. Income Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle I V, Ahmedabad and Another; [1975] 100 ITR 97 (3) Motichand Hirachand and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation; AIR 1968 Supreme Court 441 (V 55 C 97) - (4) The Corporation of Calcutta v. Sm. Padma Debi and others; AIR 1962 Supreme Court 151 (V 49 C 28) (5) Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. v. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors.; AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1940 (6) Kashi Prasad Kataruka v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar; [1975] 101 ITR 810 (7) Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay)Ltd.; [2001] 248 ITR 723 (8) Order of Allahabad High Court in case of Sewa Ram Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax; (9) Order of Madras High Court dated 4th April, 2003 in case of N. Nataraj v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and (10) [2011] 333 ITR 38 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moni Kumar Subba 17. Mr. Chhotaray's submissions were adopted by Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing for the revenue in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 2447/2011, 819/2012, 820/2012, 821/2012, 827/2012, 1182/2012, 753/2012, 754/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submits that with respect to the assessee's claim that it could not charge rent higher than the deemed standard rent i.e. rent on 01.10.1987, the Assessing Officer held that the claim was not tenable as the standard rent had not been fixed by a Court under section 8(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 upon an application for the same as could have been done by the assessee. Thus the assessee had deliberately foregone its right to fix standard rent higher than the artificially low rent being charged on 01.10.1987 and had not even availed off the benefit of annual 5% permissible increase under the Maharashtra Rent Control act, 1999 obviously because the Director being the tenant of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer held that the rent at which the property can be reasonably let out is definitely much more than the rent being charged from the director tenants. The Assessing Officer relied on the two judgments of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr. 122 ITR 700 (SC). and T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. v. CIT [241 ITR 420 (Mad)]. The assessee filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent to Mr. T. B. Ruia long back and on his death Mrs. Asha Ruia became the tenant and there was a revised agreement dated 14.08.2008. In all the years the Assessing Officer has been accepting rent received by the assessee company and the assessment order for one of the years viz. Assessment year 2004-05 is under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ii) it was already established that while invoking provisions of section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has to consider municipal rateable value, or standard rent or actual rent received, whichever is higher and set out the various paragraphs of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Makrupa Chemicals (P)Ltd. [108 ITD 95 (Bom). stating that the methodology for arriving at the annual value of property under the provisions of section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was given therein; (iii) that the property is a tenanted property and the tenant is a protected tenant as per the orders of the Court and since the rent received by the assessee is more than the standard rent/municipal rateable value, the Assessing Officer has no option than to accept the rent received by the assessee. He accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P)Ltd. (supra) is erroneous as it presupposes that the assessee is outside the purview of the Rent Control Act whereas the Tribunal itself has given a finding that the property is a tenanted property and the tenant is a protected tenant as per the orders of the Court. On the issue of earlier years, it is submitted that only for assessment year 2004-05 the assessee's stand appears to have been accepted under section 143(3) but for no other year. Every year is a separate unit of assessment. In any event the Tribunal has decided the matter on merits and not on the basis of earlier years. It is submitted that if this Court holds that the property is outside the purview/ambit of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the appellant revenue craves leave of this Court to adopt the arguments and submissions made by Shri P.C. Chhotaray in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-12 v. Tip Top Typography (ITXA 1213 of 2011), and submit that Court be pleased to allow the appeals upholding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) determining ALV of the property. Alternatively, if this Court holds that the case of the assessees herein falls within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation of the property. He submits that this Circular holds the field and has not been withdrawn. It will bind the revenue under section 119 of Income Tax Act. Then, Mr. Murlidhar has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Prabhavati reported in [1983] 141 ITR 149. Mr. Murlidhar relied upon the observations at page 424 of the report and urged that the wording of section 143 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 contains identical expression/words namely that the rateable value has to be determined on the basis of the rent which such rent or building might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. Similar principle is laid down in the case of Motichand Hirachand reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 441. 23. Mr. Murlidhar, then, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M.V. Sonavala v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1989]177 ITR 246. Mr. Murlidhar also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in [2010] 323 ITR 104. He has also relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be occupied by the owner by reason of the fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at any other place, he has to reside at that place in a building not belonging to him [section 23(2)(a) and (b)]. The exception in (ii) above is not available if the house or any part is actually let during the whole or part of the previous year or any other benefit is derived by the owner. [section 23(3)]. And further exception in (ii) above is limited to one house which the assessee at his option may specify [section 23(4)]. It is because an assessee is assessable to income from house property on a notional figure even if the property is not let out that section 23(1)(a) uses the expression 'reasonably be expected to let'. It is for this reason that the municipal rateable value has been correctly adopted for the purpose of determining the annual value under section 23(1)(a). The proposition by the Revenue that the Assessing Officer can adopt the 'fair rent' based on information obtained from local enquiries, brokers and the internet is totally unwarranted. In cases where the property is let out, ordinarily the license fee agreed between a willing licenso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be based on the amount received by the tenants (group entities) from sub-tenant (M/s. Saraswat Bank). The rateable value has to be determined on the rent paid by the group entities (tenants) to the owner namely the respondent-assessee. It is in these circumstances that in the return of income, the respondent-assessee stated accordingly. However, the Assessing Officer determined the Annual Letting Value on the amount or quantum which was received by the tenant from the sub-tenant. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the rent received by the respondent-assessee from the tenants and the amount received by the tenants from the sub-tenant. For the first time in the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer held that the transaction between the respondents and the tenants is camouflage and colourable device to evade the tax. 27. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the said appeal was partly allowed on 4th February, 2009. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the Annual Letting Value determined by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Act. It is also submitted that this issue had come up in earlier assessments of the respondent and the rent received by the respondent was accepted as Annual Letting Value by the department since assessment years 1993-94 (first year), 1994-95 and 1996-97. All these assessments were completed under section 143(3) and after elaborate discussion the rent received by the respondent was accepted as Annual Letting Value. There are no changes in the facts and circumstance of the case to deviate from the Annual Letting Value determined by the Assessing Officer in the previous assessment years. In general, doctrine of 'Res Judicata' does not apply to Income Tax Proceedings. However, it appears that conclusion reached based on identical facts in the previous years need not be given a go by in the absence of any compelling circumstance. In this respect, reliance is placed on following decisions: (1) Radhasoami Satsang 193 ITR 321 (SC); (2) Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC); (3) Baijnath Brijmohan & Sons Ltd. 161 ITR 234 (Bom); (4) H A Shah 30 ITR 618 (Bom); and (5) CIT v. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 (Bom). 28. Mr. Shah submits that in view of the above sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and which states that for the purpose of clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner shall not include, subject to the rules, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realize. By sub-sections (2) and (3) it has been clarified that the annual value in view of the circumstances set out in this sub-section will be taken to be nil but sub-section (2) of section 23 if will not apply in the circumstances set out by sub-section(3). If the owner has more than one house then, how the annual value has to be determined, is set out in sub-section (4) of section 23. 32. Thus, the scheme is that income from house property shall be taken as a component of the income chargeable to tax. How that income from house property has to be 'computed' is then provided by the legislature. That is the annual value of the property. Thus, the legislature deems the annual value firstly to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. In the event, the property which consists of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof if in ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and the assessee was called upon to furnish an explanation as to why the income from house property should not be computed by estimating the annual value as per provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees representative addressed letters and urged that no estimation is required to be made as the quantum reflects the prevailing rate or value in the market. From the record it appears that the Assessing Officer in the letter dated 12th December, 2007 set out certain instances and which he termed as comparable. He submits that these instances are of leave and license agreement. Therefore, the rate per sq.ft. and based on which the license fees are determined would demonstrate as to how the amount decided or determined as license fees by the assessee with the related party M/s. Reliance is lesser than the prevailing rate. 36. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer dealt with the stand of the assessee and which was supported by the assessee by some decisions of Courts of law. This is evident from paras-3.8 onwards. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lessee agreed to deposit the amount as a security deposit for the due performance of the lease. The assessee was not to pay any interest on the security deposit to the lessee. The premises were covered by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The Assessing Officer held that for the purposes of section 23(1)(b) and though the annual rent received or receivable was higher than the expected rent, still the notional interest for the interest free deposit would be the sum total of the rent actually received plus this notional interest. That notional interest was calculated by the Assessing Officer at a rate at which the assessee borrowed funds. This order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Being aggrieved by this order, the assessee carried the matter in the Tribunal. The Tribunal on facts found that the actual rent received by the assessee, even without taking into account the notional interest, was more than the annual value determinable under section 23(1)(a) of the Act and it is for this reason that the Department invoked only section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that section 23(1)(b) only applied to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only applies to cases where the actual rent received is more than the reasonable rent under section 23(1) (a) and it is for this reason that section 23(1)(b) contemplates that in such cases the annual value should be decided on the basis of the actual rent received. As stated hereinabove, in this case, the department has invoked section 23(1)(b) which, as stated hereinabove, proceeds on the basis that the actual rent received by the assessee is more than the reasonable rent under section 23(1) (a). The Tribunal has also found that the actual rent received by the assessee, even without taking into account the notional interest, was more than the annual value determinable under section 23(1)(a). This finding of fact has not been challenged by the department in this appeal. On the contrary, the department has contended that in this case section 23(1)(b) was applicable. They have not relied on the provisions of section 23(1)(a). The question as to whether notional interest could have been taken into account under section 23(1)(a) does not arise in this appeal and we do not wish to go into that question in this appeal. However, the moot point which needs to be considered in this case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the circumstances, the value of the notional advantage, like notional interest in this case, will not form part of actual rent received as contemplated by section 23(1) (b). At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that under section 23(1)(a), the assessing officer has to decide the fair rent of the property. While deciding the fair rent, various factors could be taken into account. In such cases various methods like contractors method could be taken into account. If on comparison of the fair rent with the actual rent received, the assessing officer finds that the actual rent received is more than the fair rent determinable as above, then actual rent shall constitute the annual value under section 23(1)(b). Now, applying the above test to the facts of this case, we find a categorical finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the actual rent received by the assessee was more than the fair rent. Under the above circumstances, in view of the said finding of fact, we do not see any reason to interfere." 42. The Division Bench expressly kept open the question as to whether notional interest can form part of the "fair rent" under section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; "12. In this backdrop, the important question which arises for determination is: what is the fair rent of the properties, which were let out in the instant case? The mistake committed by the AO was that he did not address this issue and straightway proceeded to add notional interest on the interest free security deposit. The aforesaid conclusion is correct. We may record that permissibility of adding notional interest into actual market rent received was not approved by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Satya Co. Ltd.[(1997) 140 CTR (Cal) 569] and categorically rejected in the following words: "There is no mandate of law whereby the AO could convert the depression in the rate of rent into money value by assuming the market rate of interest on the deposit as the further rent received by way of benefit of interest-free deposit. But s. 23, as already noted, does not permit such calculation of the value of the benefit of interest-free deposit as part of the rent. This situation is, however, foreseen by Schedule III to the WT Act and it authorises computation of presumptive interest at the rate of 15 per cent. as an integral part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed by the tenant with the landlord in connection with the letting out of such property. It must be remembered that in a taxing statute it would be unsafe for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. The attempt by learned counsel for the Revenue to draw an analogy from the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is also to no avail. It is an admitted position that there is a specific provision in the Wealth Tax Act which provides for considering of a notional interest whereas Section 23(1)(a) contains no such specific provision." We approve the aforesaid view of the Division Bench of this Court and Operative words in Section 23 (1)(a) of the Act are "the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year". These words provide a specific direction to the Revenue for determining the "fair rent". The Assessing Officer, having regard to the aforesaid provision is expected to make an inquiry as to what would be the possible rent that the property might fetch. Thus, if he finds that the actual rent received is less than the "fair/market rent" because of the reason that the assessee has receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant. When the annual value is determined under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 23 with reference to the fair rent then to such value no further addition can be made. The fair rent, takes into consideration everything. The notional interest on the deposit is not any actual rent received or receivable. Under sub-clause (b) of section 23(1) only the actual rent received or receivable can be taken into consideration and not any notional advantage. The rent is an actual sum of money which is payable by the tenant for use of the premises to the landlord. Any advantage and/or perquisite cannot be treated as rent. Wherever any such perquisite or benefit is sought to be treated as income, specific provisions in that behalf have been made in the Act by including such benefit, etc., in the definition of the income under section 2(24) of the Act. Specific provisions have also been made under different heads for adding such benefits or perquisites as income while computing income under those heads, e.g., salary, business. The computation of the income under the head 'House property' is on a deemed basis. The tax has to be paid by reason of the ownership of the property. Ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is a change in circumstances because of passage of time, viz., the annual value was fixed by the Municipal Authorities much earlier in point of time on the basis of rent than received, this may not provide a safe yardstick if in the Assessment Year in question when assessment is to be made under Income Tax Act. The property is let-out at a much higher rent. Thus, the Assessing Officer in a given case can ignore the municipal valuation for determining annual letting value if he finds that the same is not based on relevant material for determining the "fair rent" in the market and there is sufficient material on record for taking a different valuation. We may profitably reproduce the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi, AIR 1962 SC 151, 153. "A bargain between a willing lessor and a willing lessee uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances may afford a guiding test of reasonableness. An inflated or deflated rate of rent based upon fraud, emergency, relationship and such other considerations may take it out of the bounds of reasonableness." Thus the rateable value, if correctly determined, under the municip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue and net annual value are estimated by reference to the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Various methods of valuation are applied in order to arrive at such hypothetical rent, for instance, by reference to the actual rent paid for the property or for others comparable to it or where there are no rents by reference to the assessments of comparable properties or to the profits carried from the property or to the cost of construction." 46. We have and after careful reading of the provision in question and the conclusion of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court councluded that a different view cannot be taken. We respectfully concur with the view taken in this Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court. 47. We are of the view that where Rent Control Legislation is applicable and as is now urged the trend in the real estate market so also in the commercial field is that considering the difficulties faced in either retrieving back immovable properties in metro cities and towns, so also the time spent in litigation, it is expedient to execute a leave and license agreements. These are usually for fixed periods and renewable. In such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate based on fraud, emergency, relationship and other considerations makes it unreasonable must precede the undertaking of the above exercise. After the above ascertainment is done by the Officer he must, then, comply with the principles of fairness and justice and make the disclosure to the Assessee so as to obtain his view. 48. We are not in agreement with Shri Chhotaray that the municipal rateable value cannot be accepted as a bonafide rental value of the property and it must be discarded straightway in all cases. There cannot be a blanket rejection of the same. If that is taken to be a safe guide, then, to discard it there must be cogent and reliable material. 49. We are of the opinion that market rate in the locality is an approved method for determining the fair rental value but it is only when the Assessing Officer is convinced that the case before him is suspicious, determination by the parties is doubtful that he can resort to enquire about the prevailing rate in the locality. We are of the view that municipal rateable value may not be binding on the Assessing Officer but that is only in cases of afore-referred nature. It is definitely a safe guide. 50. We have broadl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versally applied. Today, it may be commercially unviable to enter into a lease and, therefore, this mode of inducting a 'third party' in the premises is adopted. This may not be the trend tomorrow, therefore, we do not wish to conclude the matter by evolving any rigid test. 52. We have also noted the submissions of Shri Ahuja. We are of the opinion that even in the cases and matters brought by him to our notice, it is evident that the Assessing Officer cannot brush aside the rent control legislation, in the event, it is applicable to the premises in question. Then, the Assessing Officer has to undertake the exercise contemplated by the rent control legislation for fixation of standard rent. The attempt by the Assessing Officer to override the rent control legislation and when it balances the rights between the parties has rightly been interfered with in the given case by the Appellate authority. The Assessing Officer either must undertake the exercise to fix the standard rent himself and in terms of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 if the same is applicable or leave the parties to have it determined by the Court or Tribunal under that Act. Until, then, he may not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
