9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t let out at all. A part of the property was, however, let out for the first time on March 1, 1971. In the assessment year 1970-71, the Commissioner of Income-tax allowed no vacancy remission following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Liquidator, Mahmudabad Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 470. A copy of the order of the Commissioner for the assessment year 1970-71, asking the Income-tax Officer to withdraw vacancy allowance granted for the assessment year 1970-71, is annexure A. In appeal, the Tribunal took the view that the Calcutta High Court's decision was not applicable inasmuch as the construction of the property had been completed only in July, 1969, and, therefore, the property was not vacant for the full previous year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and was then let out for one month and, therefore, vacancy allowance, he held, was not admissible. He directed the Income-tax Officer to alter the assessment on the basis of his findings. Annexure D is the copy of that order. The matter was taken in appeal to the Tribunal by the assessee. For the earlier year, as far as the portion of the property which was totally vacant was concerned, he held that no full vacancy remission should be allowed. A further reason on which reliance was placed was that unless a property after construction was occupied by the assessee for his own use or was let out, no notional income could be taken. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessee should be permitted to claim vacancy allowance f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnexure E (pages 12 and 13 of the paper book) : "The fact that part of the property was let out from March 1, 1,971, and the other part of the property was not at all let out is not disputed. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether vacancy allowance is allowable or not and that brings me to the provisions of section 24(1)(ix) of the Income-tax Act. Since the Cochin Bench, in it, order referred to above, had already interpreted that provision and I have one through the reasonings expressed by the Bench in that order and as I am in agreement with the said views, I also hold that it is not necessary that the property should have been let out for claiming vacancy allowance. I will further add that the income from property is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would go to show that it is only where the property was let out for part of the year at least, vacancy allowance could be claimed. This view we express finds support in the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Pradeep Kumar M. Shah [1981] 130 ITR 118. Now turning to the next question whether notional income could be taken in respect of the period till it was occupied by the assessee for his own residence or was let out, we are afraid, the view taken by the Tribunal is due to making a wrong approach to the question. There is absolutely no warrant in the section for the proposition that no notional income could be taken in respect of the period till it was occupied by the assessee for his own residence or it was let out. The Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
