9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 directed the A.O to adopt the municipal rateable value for A.Y. 2010-11 i.e ₹ 17,03,369/- as a basis, and therein determine the ALV after making an addition of 5% year after year and also a further increase of 1/9th to the said value to arrive at the ALV for the year in question. Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 which also was restored by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication had not found favour with the same view that was therein taken by the CIT(A), who had on similar lines directed the A.O to recompute the ALV by taking the municipal rateable value as the base and increase it by 5% every year, and had vacated the same. At the same time, the Tribunal while disposing off the aforesaid appeal for A.Y. 2010-11[ 2020 (2) TMI 1477 - ITAT MUMBAI] , relying on its earlier order for A.Y. 2011-12, A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15, had therein directed the A.O to determine the ALV of the vacant flats as per the municipal rateable value. In fact, it was observed by the Tribunal that in case if the ALV determined by the assessee was as per the municipal rateable value then, the same should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had offered Annual Lettable Value (for short ALV ) of the flats owned by her at Central Garden Complex, S.M. Road, Chunabhatti (East), Mumbai as per the municipal rateable value at ₹ 1,39,785/-. On being queried, the assessee justified the ALV of the aforesaid property and submitted that where the annual value was fixed by the municipality or corporation, the same should be accepted except for in those cases where the actual rent received was found to be higher. However, the A.O did not find favour with the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O deputed the inspector of his charge to conduct a market enquiry. As per the report furnished by the inspector, the A.O determined the ALV of the flats at ₹ 2,51,97,600/- (i.e by adopting a rental rate of ₹ 42/- per sq. ft.). After allowing deduction under Sec. 24 i.e @ 30% of the ALV, the A.O made an addition of ₹ 1,76,38,320/- under the head Income from house property in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the aforesaid assessment order dated 29.10.2010 before the CIT(A). Observing, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. As such, backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 254, dated 29.07.2016 assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 2,20,54,700/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the aforesaid assessment order before the CIT(A). Observing, that the issue as regards determination of the ALV was recurring one in the assessee s own case and had been looked into by him in A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, the CIT(A) going by the view that was taken by him while disposing off the assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 directed the A.O to compute the ALV in the backdrop of the working that was therein adopted by him. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the A.O to compute the ALV after considering the municipal rateable value as was determined by his predecessor in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 at ₹ 17,03,369/-, which was thereafter increased by 5% year after year and also further increased by 1/9th of the said value. Accordingly, the A.O was directed by the CIT(A) to adopt the aforesaid methodology and do a backward working to arrive at the ALV of the property in question for A.Y. 2009-10. 4. Aggrieved, both the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the second round of appeal before us. The solitary issue involved in the captioned appeal hinges around the issue as regards the determination of the ALV of the property owned by the assessee viz. Flats at Central Garden Complex, S.M. Road, Chunabhatti (East), Mumbai, which were lying vacant during the year in question. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O in the course of the set aside proceedings had endorsed the view that was taken by this predecessor in the course of the original assessment proceedings and determined the ALV of the property in question by adopting the rental rate of ₹ 42/- per sq. ft. that was backed by the field report dated 23.12.2010 of the inspector attached with his predecessor. As noticed by us hereinabove, the Tribunal had in the first round of appeal restored the matter to the file of the A.O, for the reason, that the A.O had merely acted upon the inspectors report without carrying out any further inquiry, and thus had remanded the matter to his file for the purpose of making a proper inquiry. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that the appellate authority observing that as the A.O in the course of the set aside proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to re compute the ALV by taking the MRV as the base and increase it by 5% every year. It is evident, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while giving such direction has followed the order passed by him in case of Smt. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, one of the family members. However, while deciding the issue in case of the aforesaid family member, the Tribunal in the order referred to above has disagreed with the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to determine the ALV as per MRV. In fact, in assessee s own case in assessment years 2011 12, 2012 13 and 2013 14, the Tribunal while deciding identical issue in ITA no.3893/Mum./2017 Ors., dated 22nd March 2019, has held that determination of ALV on ad hoc basis by making 5% increase over the MRV is not acceptable. Further, the Tribunal has directed that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be determined on the basis of MRV. The same view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding assessee s own case for the assessment year 2014 15, vide ITA no. 547/Mum./2018, dated 31st July 2019. Facts being identical, respectfully following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
