Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Laxmi Jain, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cen Cir 6(4), Mumbai on 31 December, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "A", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent
3914/Mum/17 2011-12 Smt. Laxmi Jain, The Asst. Commissioner
82, Maker Chambers-III, of Income Tax,
Nariman Point, Central Circle-6(4),
3915/Mum/17 2012-13 MUMBAI MUMBAI
[PAN: AABPJ 1889 R]
3669/Mum/17 2011-12 Smt. Laxmi Satyapal
DCIT, CC-6(4), Jain,
MUMBAI 82, Maker Chambers-III,
Nariman Point,
3670/Mum/17 2012-13 MUMBAI
[PAN: AABPJ 1889 R]
Appellant By : Shri Anujkisnadwala, AR
Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore, DR
Date of Hearing : 04-12-2018 Date of Pronouncement :- 31-12-2018
ORDER
Per Bench:
These appeals are filed by both Assessee and Revenue.
Since the issue is common in all these appeals, we have heard together and decided by this common order.:2:
ITA Nos. 3914 & 3915/Mum/17 3669 & 3670/Mum/17
2. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the flat owned by the assessee at Central Garden Complex, Chunabhatti, Mumbai at Rs. 10,63,501/- instead of Rs. 8,44,048/- offered by the assessee, based on the municipal ratable value for the AY. 2011-12.
2.1. Similarly in AY. 2012-13, the assessee challenged the confirmation of ALV at Rs. 11,14,144/- instead of Rs. 8,91,541/- offered by the assessee based on the municipal ratable value.
3. Whereas the Revenue has challenged in both the assessment years the orders of CIT(A), whereby the First Appellate Authority has held that the ratable value of the properties by the municipal authorities should be taken while determining the ALV of the property and thereby restricting the ALV to Rs. 10,63,501/- as against the AO of Rs. 1,61,57,124/- in AT 2011-12 and Rs. 14,14,144/- as against the AO of Rs. 1,77,72,836/- in AT 2012-13.
4. The facts in brief are that, for the AY. 2011-12, assessee was the owner of flats at Central Garden Complex, Chunabhatti, Mumbai, which was lying vacant throughout the year and the annual value of the flat as per the municipal ratable value was at :3: ITA Nos. 3914 & 3915/Mum/17 3669 & 3670/Mum/17 Rs. 9,37,831/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings called upon the assessee to justify and explain the annual value taken by the assessee in respect of the said flats, which was replied by the assessee by submitting that annual ratable value has been taken on the basis of municipal ratable value as the flats were vacant throughout, following various decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches and jurisdictional High Court. However, the contentions of assessee did not find favour with the AO, who determined the annual value of the said property at Rs. 1,61,57,124/- and finally assessed the income from the property at Rs. 89,98,897/- by framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
5. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography [368 ITR 330], determined the annual value of the property on the basis of municipal ratable value at Rs. 10,63,501/-, which was calculated on the basis of annual value of flats for the AY. 2010-11 as increased by 5%. The Revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal before us against the order of the CIT(A).
:4:
ITA Nos. 3914 & 3915/Mum/17 3669 & 3670/Mum/17
6. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2118/Mum/2012 (AY. 2009-10), dt. 26-11- 2014, determining the annual value of the property based upon the municipal ratable value. Assessee also relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 4726 & 4831/Mum/2014 (AY. 2010-11), dt. 04-02-2016 and another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos. 3666 & 3845/Mum/2017, in the case of Shri Virendra Jain (Husband of the assessee,), dt. 14-11-2017, wherein also, the issue has been decided on the same lines.
7. Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the orders of AO.
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the decisions relied upon. We find from the facts of the case available that the issue in hand is squarely covered settled wherein it was decided that the annual value of the property has to be determined on the basis of the municipal ratable value and not on the market value. In this case, assessee owned flats at Central Garden Complex, Chunabhatti, Mumbai, which were vacant during the year and :5: ITA Nos. 3914 & 3915/Mum/17 3669 & 3670/Mum/17 assessee offered to tax the ALV at Rs. 8,44,048/-. We have perused the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and the operative part of the same is reproduced hereunder:
"7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities, we find that the CIT (A) has rightly relied on the binding judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani (supra). There are many other decisions from the jurisdictional High Court in the similar lines, the copies of which are placed in the paper book of the asssessee. The Revenue has not demonstrated that the facts of the assessee's case are covered by the decisions cited in ground no.1 of the present appeal. Considering the binding nature of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Smitaben N Ambani (supra), we are of the opinion that the finding of the CIT (A) is an Order and it does not call for any interference on this issue. In any case, the percentage of investment in the impugned properties is no basis for arriving at the ALV of the properties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed".
8.1. The facts of the case before us are materially same, as has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the above decision. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), who directed the AO to take the ALV at MRV of the previous year plus 5% and accordingly we uphold the same. Appeals of both the parties are dismissed.
8.2. Similarly, the facts of the case for the AY. 2012-13 are also identical. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the :6: ITA Nos. 3914 & 3915/Mum/17 3669 & 3670/Mum/17 Co-ordinate Bench, we uphold the order of CIT(A) for the AY. 2012-13 also by dismissing the grounds of both the parties.
9. In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st day of December, 2018 Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई/Mumbai; ददनाुंक/Dated : 31st December, 2018 TNMM आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अिीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent
3. आयकर आयक्त(अिील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai
4. आयकर आयक्त / CIT, Mumbai
5. यिभागीय प्रयियनयि, आयकर अिीलीय अयिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file :7: ITA Nos. 3914 & 3915/Mum/17 3669 & 3670/Mum/17 आदेशानसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यायिि प्रयि //True Copy// उि/सहायक िुंजीकार (Dy./Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अयिकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai