9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own case, we direct Ld. AO to adopt the MRV as Annual Letting Value. The ground, thus raised, stand allowed. - ITA No. 6716/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2021 - Hon ble Shri Amarjit Singh, JM And Hon ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ld. AR For the Revenue : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 2016 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 54, Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-54/IT-10469/DCCC-6(4)/2017-18 dated 24/08/2018 on following grounds: - 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred on confirming the Annual Letti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The material facts are that an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 27/12/2017 for the year under consideration wherein the income was determined at ₹ 199.31 Lacs after certain adjustments as against returned income of ₹ 156.73 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/08/2015. It so transpired that the assessee owned 19 flats at Central Garden Complex (Tower No.5) out of which 7 flats were lying vacant during the year whereas remaining flats were let out. The assessee offered aggregate income against the vacant flats at ₹ 1.26 Lacs on the basis of municipal rateable value. However, Ld. AO, applying the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(a) opined that the annual value shall be deemed to be the sum for which the property might reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flats were actually let out, the same would give a clear indication of the rate at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let out. Therefore, the estimation so made by Ld. AO was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon careful consideration, we find the issue of determination of ALV was subject matter of cross-appeals for AYs 2013-14 2014-15 before this Tribunal in assessee s own case vide ITA Nos.Nos.6836/Mum/2017 others, order dated 27/02/2019 wherein the bench took note of earlier decision of Tribunal in AY 2012-13, ITA No.3887 3665/Mum/2017. In the decision for AY 2012-13, the coordinate bench after considering the relevant provisions of Act and also by following the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, nor the same were singed by the assessee. 7 We, therefore, find that the entire issue is based on appreciation of facts on record. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence to come to the conclusion that, there was no evidence in possession of the Assessing Officer to make additions. Significantly, the Tribunal noticed several inconsistencies in the contents of 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was in turn followed the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee s own case, we are of the view that there is no error in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in determining the ALV of house property on the basis of municipal rateable value. Hence, we are inclined to upheld the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is quite evident that the consistent view of the Tribunal in all the earlier years is that municipal rateable value was to be taken as Annual Rental Value. Nothing is on record to demonstrate that the any of the aforesaid adjudication has subsequently been reversed in any manner. Therefore, the distinction of facts as made by Ld. CIT(A) was not to be accepted. Respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
