9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition in respect of income from house property computed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of rent receivable if the properties are let out and not the municipal valuation as shown by the assessee. Year-wise additions made by Assessing Officer are shown as below:- Assessment year Amount (Rs) 1999-00 54,000/- 2000-01 54,000/- 2002-03 1,26,000/- 2004-05 75,600/- 2005-06 75,600/- 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual. He is residing in 9/464, Wadifalia, Store Sheri, Surat. In addition to this, the assessee was having two other properties in Assessment years 1999-00 & 2000-01, 2004-05 & 2005-06 and three other properties in Assessment year 2002-03. The assessee claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed that the properties have remained vacant throughout the year. Hence the case of the appellant is not covered as per the said clause. The annual value of the property has to be taken as the sum which the properties might reasonably be expected to let from year to year or the rent received if the properties are let out and not the municipal valuation as shown by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has rightly estimated the fair rent at ₹ 3,000/- p.m. for each building. The appellant has not given any evidence for fair rent for ₹ 500/-. Hence, the action of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and the ground is rejected." Aggrieved by the impugned order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the time of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in the vicinity of the property is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the income from house property on the basis of municipal valuation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Anil Kumar, CIT, Sr.DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 6. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and the decision of ITAT Mumbai 'D' Bench in the case of Parkaper Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra). In the case before us, the properties are not let out. Therefore, is presumed that these are self-occupied and the decision of the ITAT mentioned above is squarely applicable to the facts of assessee's case. The ITAT Mumbai 'D' B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
