9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... talk about intention of assessee to let out. If property is held by owner for letting out and efforts are made to let it out, such property will be covered by section 23(1)(c), and this requirement has to be satisfied in each year that property was being held to let out, but remained vacant for whole or part of the year. Thus, if a property is held with an intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out, it could be said that such a property is a let out property and the same would fall within the purview of clause (c) of section 23(1). The fact the present case assessee always had the intention of letting out the property at Chennai, post assessment year 2002-03, however, it has been submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. Thus, the addition so made should be deleted. 2. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of case are as under: Assessee filed her return of income on 29/09/12 declaring total income of ₹ 1, 86, 79, 370/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued along with questionnaire and notice under section 142(1). In response to the statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before Ld.AO and furnished required details as called for. 2.1 Ld.AO observed that assessee had earned income from salary, house property business, capital gain and other sources during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was thus, submitted by Ld. Counsel that under such circumstances the property has to be considered as per provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. He plays reliance upon following decisions of coordinate benches of this Tribunal: Preamsudha Exports (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in (2008) 110 ITD 158; Shakuntala Devi versus DDIT reported in (2000 del) 31 CCH 32 (Bang); ACIT versus Dr Prabha Sanghi reported in (2012) 139 ITD 504 (Delhi); Reynaud Shamlal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1100/del/2014 wide order dated 21/09/16; 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld.CIT (A) confirmed addition by relying upon decisions of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Vivek Jain vs ACIT reported in (2011) 14 Taxmann.com 146 and H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of the records placed before us. 9. In order to attract section 23(l)(c), the following requirements must be fulfilled (i) the property, or any part thereof, must be let; and (ii) it should have been vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year ; and (iii) owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof should be less than the sum referred to in clause 9.1 It is only if these three conditions are satisfied together, would clause (c) of section 23(1) apply, in which event amount received or receivable, in terms of clause (c) of section 23(1), shall be deemed to be the annual value of the property. 10. Further, Clause (c) does not apply to situations where property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th situations, i.e., property is let and property is vacant for the whole of the relevant previous year cannot co-exist does not merit acceptance. Clause (c) encompasses cases where a property is; let out for more than a year in which event alone would the question of if being vacant during the whole of the previous year arise. 13.1 From the above provision of law, it can be construed that in case the property or part thereof was vacant during the period, the proportion deduction should be allowed from the sum on which the property might reasonably be let out from year to year. We find that it is the plea of the assessee that due to inherent defects, the flat could not be let out. Hence, the flat remained vacant. Hence, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that due to fall in property prices, the same could not be let out year after year because of which disputed property remained vacant. One more relevant factor which we observe is that, assessing officer in any of preceding assessment year, post assessment year 2002-03, has never disputed that the property was not vacant. In fact in assessment order passed for year under consideration, Ld.AO is admitting to the fact that property in question was let out only till assessment year 2002-03 and thereafter it was vacant, even during year under consideration. Under such circumstances, in our considered opinion assessee s case stands squarely covered by view taken by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
