9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, PRESIDENT This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order of the CIT(A)-32, Mumbai dated 23.2.2012 relating to the assessment year 2009- 2010. In this appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in following his own order for the earlier year and fell in error of law in not appreciating that the annual value of a property not actually let out cannot, for the purpose of section 23(1)(a) exceed the municipal valuation of the property as adopted by the municipal authorities. 2. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the binding authorities of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and the Hon ble Tribunal which were brought to his noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce section 23(1) (a) (b) (c) are reproduced hereunder :- 23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be - (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable; or (c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bati Bansali [1983] 141 ITR 419. One of the questions involved in that case was whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the income tax officer to redetermine the annual value of the property under section 23(1) afresh with reference to its rateable value as determined by the municipal corporation. The question was answered in the affirmative and the court held that the income from house property had to be computed on the basis of the sum for which the property might reasonably be let from year to year and the annual municipal value. ii) Parkpaper Industries P. Ltd. 25 SOT 406(Mum) : In this case, the Hon ble Tribunal after relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala Vs. CIT, 177 ITR 246 (Bom) and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the above reasons, we hold that the Municipal Valuation should be the basis of determining annual value in the present case. Action of the Revenue authorities in adopting annual value on the basis of inquiries conducted regarding market rent in the vicinity of the property is not in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is directed to accept the income from house property on the basis of Municipal Valuation. iii) Smitaben Amabani, 323 ITR 104(Bom) : In this case, the Hon ble High Court has held as under :- In the case of self-occupied property, the valuation of a house for the purpose of wealth-tax is to be calculated on the basis of gross maintainable rent which is the sum for which the house might reasonably be expected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to adopt the municipal valuation/rateable value adopted by the municipal authorities. Since ground No.1 has not been pressed, hence, the assessee s appeal is treated as partly allowed. 4. The facts of the case relating to this year are similar to that of assessment year 2008-2009 and the issue involved is also identical. Respectfully following the Order of the Tribunal passed in assessee s own case relating to assessment year 2008-2009 we hold that the ALV of the property in question should be determined as per municipal valuation. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the municipal value/ratable value adopted by the municipal authorities. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
