9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Kishore as Karta of his HUF in respect of the asst. yr. 1972-73. Cross Objection No. 20 (Alld) of 1981 is in respect of the above appeal of the department. This assessee has also filed appeals in respect of this year being WTA Nos. 634, 635 637 (Alld) of 1980. 2. As the point for determination in all these appeals and Cross Objection are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee owns 1/4the share of 49/29 Jhajharia Market, Generalganj, Kanpur in his individual capacity. Another 1/4th share of the above property is held by him as Karta of his HUF. The value of the aforesaid share was declared by the assessee at Rs. 2,00,434 on the basis of the report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercent allowed by the Valuation Officer. (c) The multiple of 15 applied by the Valuation Officer was very high and the reasonable multiple should have been 10. (d) The addition of Rs. 8,742 made by the Valuation Officer representing the reversionary value of the land was unjustified." The ld. AAC upheld the assessee's contention with regard to the objections listed at (a), (b) and (d) above. He, however, did not upheld the assessee's objection listed at (c) above and expressed the opinion that the multiple of 15 applied by the Valuation Officer was fair and reasonable having regard to the fact that the property was governed under the Rent Control Act and the rent thereof could not be enhanced without undergoing a lengthy and tiring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of this property works out to Rs. 3,18,150". Both the department and the assessee are aggrieved of the aforesaid finding of the ld. AAC. The grievance of the department is that there was no justification for the ld. AAC for holding that 1/6th instead of 1/12th of the annual letting value should be deducted for repairs not was there any justification for holding that collection charges should be deducted @ 6 percent instead of @ 4 percent. It is pointed out by the ld. Deptl. Rep. that in terms of s. 28 of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the tenant is entitled for retaining one month's rent to undertake the repairs and white washing etc., of the tenanted premises and that if expenditure excee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a Chowkidar and, therefore, the ld. Deptl. Valuer had rightly observed that the AAC was not justified in increasing the value of the said property by that amount. It also pleaded by the assessee that value of the property should have been deducted on account of the joint ownership of the property by 20 percent and for this proposition he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, reported in J. N. Bose vs. CWT (1976) 104 ITR 83 (Cal). It is also pointed out that the ld. Deptl. Valuer had deducted 5 percent rebate on account of this factor, while working out the share of Shri Kamal in the said property. 9. With regard to the points on which the department is in appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee supported the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we feel that the ld. AAC was justified in acting on the basis of the All India Statute rather than on the basis of State enactment. Similarly, the estimate of expenditure on collection at 6 percent appear to us to be more realistic than that of 4 percent and it had additional merit of taking its clue from All India enactment, that is, the IT Act, 1961, which lays a ceiling of 6 percent on account of such expenditure. It is true, as pointed out by the ld. Deptl. Rep., that the deduction of 6 percent on account of collection chargers is not statutory in the sense in which deduction of 1/6th repairs is and that it is merely the maximum permissible limit and that the expenditure has to be limited to actuals in any case. But in the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent of 5 percent, as conceded to by the assessee, is justified. The Cross Objections of the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed. 12. The assessee's contention that the capitalisation multiple should not be taken at 11 appears to us to be correct. The Tribunal had estimated the value of the aforesaid property vide their order in EDA No. 3/1969-70 dt. 10th Nov., 1970 by adopting the multiple of 11. We do not see any reason to depart from the said multiple for no evidence has been laid before us by the Revenue to show that since then the yield on guilt aged securities has gone down. We, therefore, direct that the multiple of 11 percent as adopted by the IT appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid order, should be adopted for working ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
