9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is no reason for the AO to make ad-hoc enhancement towards ALV determined on the basis of municipal rateable value and hence, we are of the considered view that there is no reason for the lower authorities to enhance ALV on ad-hoc basis. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete additions made towards ALV of house property on ad-hoc basis, consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 6836/Mum/2017, ITA No. 442/Mum/2018, ITA No. 428/Mum/2018, ITA No. 550/Mum/2018, ITA No. 6838/Mum/2017, ITA No. 443/Mum/2018, ITA No. 435/Mum/2018, ITA No. 540/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri MAHAVIR SINGH, Judicial Member And Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Satishchandra Rajore For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta ORDER Per Bench:- These cross appeals filed by two different assessees as well as the Revenue are directed against, separate but identical orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai, dated 15/09/2017, 16/10/2017, 19/09/2017 and 17/10/2017 respectively for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Since, facts are identical and issues are common in these appeals, therefore, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout application of mind and in violation of the principles of the natural justice. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in all these appeals is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai, A Bench in assessee s own case for Assessment year 2012-13, where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), deleting the additions made by the AO towards ALV of house property, on the basis of market rate ignoring ALV determined by the assessee on the basis of Municipal Rateable Value. The Ld. AR, further submitted that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in making ad-hoc estimation towards ALV by increasing 5% over the previous year ALV determined on the basis of Municipal Rateable Value. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in one of the assesee s case in Income Tax Appeal No.1285 of 2015 has upheld the findings of the Tribunal in determining the ALV of the house property on the basis of Municipal Rateable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act as also by following the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s TIP Top Typography (2014) 368 ITR 330and also the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38, upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in determining the ALV of the house property on the basis of Municipal Rateable Value and also rejected claim the assessee in respect of enhancement made towards ALV on ad-hoc basis by applying certain percentage. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:- 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA Nos. 2707, 2708 2709/Mum/2013 for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 vide order dated 17.04.2015 has already considered the issue and directed the AO to adopt the ALV computed as per Municipal rateable value as deemed income from house property. The Tribunal vide Paras No. 11, 12 and 13 held as under: - 11. Ground Nos.2, 3 4 are relating to the estimation of Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the vacant flats at Central Garden Complex. The assessee has claimed that the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of jurisdictional High Court, matter is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to recompute the ALV in terms of above decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 13. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the above decision of the Tribunal and respectfully following the same, it is accordingly directed that the 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tip Top Typography (2014) 368 ITR 330(Bom), wherein the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Del) was considered and we find that Hon ble Bombay High Court in Tip Top Typography (supra) held as under: - 48. We are not in agreement with Shri Chhotaray that the municipal rateable value cannot be accepted as a bona fide 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the email and found that the loose documents/papers were not found from the possession of the assessee, nor they were signed by the assessee and finally the purchaser of the land, was not examined by the Assessing Officer. We do not find any question of law arising. 8 Question (b) relates to the additions made by the Assessing Officer by reversing the rateable value of the property owned by the assessee which was vacant. While complying the taxability of deemed rental income in terms of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, the Assessing Officer discarded the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Corporation for assessing the tax on such properties and substituted the same with market rate as prevailing in the area, as estimated by him after collecting data with respect to the same. The Tribunal, however, deleted addition on the ground that in case of vacant property, the tax on rental income in terms of Section 23 of the Act can be calculated only on the basis of rateable value assessed by the Municipal Corporation. 9 We find that this view of the Tribunal is supported by decision of this Court by order dated 16th April, 2018 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1285 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
