Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Sonu Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit 14(3)(2), Mumbai on 19 September, 2018
Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 1
ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017
A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"C" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member
and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member
ITA No. 2892 /Mum/2016
&
ITA No. 66/Mum/2017
(Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)
Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. DCIT - 14(3)(2)
Plot No. 219, Laalasis, Mumbai
11th Road, Chembur, Vs.
Mumbai 400 071.
PAN - AAACS7073C
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by : Shri. J.P Bairagra
Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mittal
Date of Hearing : 05.07.2018
Date of Pronouncement :19.09.2018
ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-22, Mumbai, dated 22.01.2016 and 27.09.2016. As a common issue is involved in the aforementioned appeals, thus, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a consolidate order. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2011-12. The assessee assailing the order passed by the CIT(A) has raised before us the following grounds of appeal :
" On the facts and circumstances of case and in law,
1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in computing the Annual Letting Value of the office premises at 81,99,360/- although the same ought to be taken as Nil under section 23(1)(c) of the Act.
Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 2 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13
2. The learned Assessing officer further erred in adopting deemed rent received of Rs. 81,99,360/- as per last year in respect of office premises at Balaji Bhavan when during the previous year the said premises was lying vacant while computing Annual Value.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in calculating profit on sale of two office units under the head Short Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 35,32,544/- as against declared by the appellant as business income of Rs. 23,92,799/-."
2. Briefly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in construction business had filed its return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 25.09.2011, declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2) of the Act.
3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the „balance sheet‟ of the assessee revealed investments of Rs. 3,54,81,980/- in immovable properties on 01.04.2010. On being called upon to explain that as to why the deemed rental income of the aforesaid properties may not be brought to tax under the head "Income from house property", the assessee objected to the same. It was the claim of the assessee that the Unit No. 401 & 425 of project "Balaji Bhawan" had remained vacant for the entire year as the licensee viz. M/s Sterling Construction System Pvt. Ltd. had vacated the premises and no rent, whatsoever, had thereafter been received. The A.O found the aforesaid claim of the assessee as factually correct. It was observed by the A.O that the assessee, vide agreement dated April, 2007 had let out Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan to M/s Sterling Construction P. Ltd. for a period of 36 months, and had offered the rental income received therefrom as its "Income from house property" in the preceding years. However, it was also noticed by the A.O, that after the expiry of the license period the licensee had vacated the property and conveyed its intention of not getting the license agreement renewed any further. The assessee in order to drive home its contention that the „annual value‟ of the property was to be taken at Nil, submitted that its case was covered by Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act. However, the A.O after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee did not find favour with the same. The A.O was of the view that as per Sec. 23(1)(a) Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 3 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 of the Act, the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year was to be taken as the deemed „annual value‟ of the property under Sec. 22 of the Act. Further, the A.O held a conviction that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) could be pressed into service only when the property is actually let and had remained vacant for some period during the year. Thus, the A.O was of the view that as the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan were not at all let out during whole of the year, hence the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) would not be applicable to its case. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O computed the „annual value‟ of the property as per Sec. 23(1)(a) at Rs. 81,99,360/-.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee was however not persuaded to accept the same and sustained the order of the A.O in context of the issue under consideration.
5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorised representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee, at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that the Ground of appeal No. 3 was not being pressed by him. In the backdrop of the concession of the ld. A.R the Ground of appeal No. 3 is dismissed as not pressed. The ld. A.R took us through the facts of the case and drew our attention to the relevant observations of the A.O and that of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration. The ld. A.R took us through Para C of the „Leave and License agreement‟, dated 22.04.2007 (Page 149) of the assessees „Paper book‟ (for short „APB‟). On a perusal of the aforesaid extract of the agreement, it emerged that the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan was given by the assessee on leave and license basis for a period of 36 months commencing from 10.04.2007, and the same thereafter was renewable for a further period of 24 months with an enhanced license fees of 25%. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that a perusal of the agreement revealed that the assessee had intended to let out the property even for the year under Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 4 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 consideration viz. A.Y 2011-12. The ld. A.R submitted that the lower authorities had misconstrued or rather misconceived the scope and gamut of the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. A.R relying on a decision of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal viz. ITAT, Pune bench „A‟ in the case of Vikas Keshav Garud Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Nashik (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune), submitted that Sec. 23(1)(c) clearly contemplated a situation where a property was vacant during the whole year. The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid order submitted that the word „let‟ and „vacant‟ are mutually exclusive terms, and a situation cannot exist where the property is let during the year and is also simultaneously vacant for the whole year. It was the contention of the ld. A.R that the lower authorities had failed to appreciate that the aforesaid statutory provision was to be viewed with regard to the intention, together with the efforts put by the assessee in letting out the property, and the gross „annual value‟ of the property was to be determined only after considering the said factors. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention took support of sub-section (3) of Sec. 23 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the usage of the term „house is actually let‟ in sub-section (3) of Sec. 23, unlike the expression „property is let‟ used in Sec. 23(1)(c), clearly revealed that as and where the legislature had required actual letting of the property, there had been a conscious, purposive and intentional usage of the term "actually", which however was absent in Sec. 23(1)(c). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the lower authorities had misconstrued the scope of Sec. 23(1)(c) and had wrongly read the requirement of actual letting of the property during the year in the same. Further, the ld. A.R in order to support his aforesaid interpretation of Sec. 23(1)(c), relied on the following orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal:
(i). Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 10, Mumbai (2008) 110 ITD 158 (Mum).
(ii). Informed Technologies India Ltd. Vs. DCIT-3(2), Mumbai (2017) 162 ITD 153 (Mum) Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 5 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13
(iii). ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi Vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi (2012) 139 ITD 504 (Del) In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the CIT(A) had erred in concluding that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) would not be applicable for determining the „annual value‟ of the property under consideration, thus, his order may be set aside.
6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan had remained vacant during whole of the year under consideration, thus, the lower authorities had rightly concluded that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) would not be applicable and had rightly determined the „annual value‟ by pressing into service Sec. 23(1)(a) of the „Act‟.
7. We have heard the authorised representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought for adjudicating as to whether the „annual value‟ of the property owned by the assessee viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan, had rightly been determined by the assessee by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟ at Rs. Nil, or the same was liable to be determined u/s 23(1)(a) as held by the lower authorities. We find that it is an admitted fact that though the assessee had vide agreement dated April, 2007 let out the Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan to M/s Sterling Construction Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 36 months, and had offered the rental income received therefrom as its "Income from house property" in the preceding years, but after the expiry of the license period of 36 months the licensee had vacated the property and conveyed its intention of not getting the license agreement renewed any further. We further find from a perusal of the records before us that it is not the case of the department that after the property was vacated, the same thereafter had remained under the self occupation of the assessee. In light of the aforesaid factual position in the case of the present assessee, Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 6 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 we find ourselves to be in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. A.R. that the issue raised before us is squarely covered by the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of viz. (i). Vikas Keshav Garud Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Nashik (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune) (ii). ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi Vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi (2012) 139 ITD 504 (Del);
(iii). Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 10, Mumbai (2008) 110 ITD 158 (Mum); and (iv). Informed Technologies India Ltd. Vs. DCIT- 3(2), Mumbai (2017) 162 ITD 153 (Mum). We find that in the case of Informed technologies India Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal after deliberating at length on the issue as regards the scope and gamut of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act, had observed as under :
"7.1 We have considered the rival submissions of either side and perused the relevant material on record, including the orders of the authorities below. The issue under consideration for adjudication before us is as to whether the „ALV‟ of the property owned by the assessee in Darshan Aparments, Malabar Hills, Mumbai, had rightly been determined by the assessee by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, or the same was liable to be determined u/s 23(1)(a) as so held by the lower authorities. We find that it is matter of undisputed fact that the property of the assessee remained let out upto 04.12.2008, and thereafter the same remained vacant. We further find from the perusal of the records before us that it is not the case of the department that after the property was vacated as on 04.12.2008, the same thereafter remained under the self occupation of the assessee. That in light of the aforesaid factual position in the case of the present assessee, we find ourselves to be in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. A.R. that the issue raised before us for adjudication is squarely covered by the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of : Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2008) 110 ITD 158 (Mum), wherein the Tribunal had therein held :
"If the property is held by the owner for letting out and efforts were made to let it out , that property is covered by this clause and this requirement has to be satisfied in each year that the property was being held to let out but remained vacant for whole or part of the year. We feel that the words „property is let‟ are used in this clause to take out those properties from the ambit of the clause in which properties are held by the owner for self- occupation i.e self occupied property (i.e SOP) because even income on account of SOP, excluding one such SOP of which annual value is to be adopted at nil, is also to be computed under this head as per Clause (a) of Section 23(1) if we see the combined reading of Sub-section (2) and (4) of Section 23. One thing is more important because we find that where the legislature have considered that actual letting out is required, they have used the words „house is actually let‟. This can be seen in Sub-section (3) of same Section 23. But in Clause (c) Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 7 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 above, „actually let‟ words are not used and this also shows that meaning and interpretation of the words „property is let‟ cannot be „property actually let out‟. In our opinion, it talks of properties which are held to letting out having intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out. If these conditions are satisfied, it has to be held that property is let and the same will fall within the purview of this clause."
We find ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid observations of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, which analyzing the scope and gamut of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, had therein concluded that in light of the words „Property is let‟ used in clause (c) of Sec. 23(1) of the „Act‟, unlike the term „house is actually let‟ as stands gathered from a conjoint reading of sub-section (2) to (4) of Sec. 23, it can safely and inescapably be gathered that the conscious, purposive and intentional usage of the aforesaid term „Property is let‟ in Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, cannot be substituted by the term „house is actually let‟ as used by the legislature in all its wisdom in sub-section (3) of Sec. 23. Thus it can safely be concluded that the requirement „house is actually let‟ during the year is not a prerequisite for bringing the case of an assessee within the sweep of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, as long as the property is let in the earlier period and is found vacant for the whole year under consideration, subject to the condition that such vacancy of the property is not for self occupation of the same by the assessee, who continues to hold the said property for the purpose of letting out. We are in agreement with the aforesaid observations of the coordinate bench that the usage of the term „Property is let‟ in Sec. 23(1)(c) had purposively been used to exclude those properties from the ambit of the clause which are held by the owner for self occupation purposes, because even though the „ALV‟ of one self occupied property so chosen by the assessee is taken at Nil, however the „ALV‟ of all the remaining self occupied properties are to be determined in terms of Sec. 23(1)(a) of the „Act‟. Thus to our understanding the term „Property is let‟ used in Sec. 23(1)(c) is solely with the intent to avoid misuse of determination of the „ALV‟ of self occupied properties by the assesses by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c), however the same cannot be stretched beyond that and the „ALV‟ of a property which is let, but thereafter remains vacant for the whole year under consideration, though subject to the condition that the same is not put under self occupation of the assessee and is held for the purpose of letting out of the same, would continue to be determined u/s 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟. Thus in light of the aforesaid order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the reasonings flowing there from, we are of the considered view that the assessee in the present case had rightly determined the „ALV‟ of the property at Rs. Nil by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟. In this regard we are further of the view that the CIT(A) had misconceived the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vikas Jain (supra), and on a perusal of the said judgment therein find that the Hon‟ble High Court in the concluding Para 14 & 15 had though concluded that the benefit of computing the „ALV‟ u/s 23(1)(c) could not be extended to a case where the property was not let out at all, would however duly encompass and take within its sweep cases where the property had remained let out for two or more years, but had remained vacant for the whole of the previous year. Thus we are of the view that now when in the case of the present assessee the property under consideration had remained let out upto 04.12.2008, and thereafter though could not be let out and had remained vacant during whole of the year under consideration, but also had never remained under the self occupation of the assessee, the Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 8 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 computation of the „ALV‟ u/s 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, had rightly been carried out in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court.
7.2 That in light of our aforesaid observations the Ground of appeal No. 2 of the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 8,40,000/- made by the A.O and as such sustained by the CIT(A) is herein vacated."
We find ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid observations of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, which we find, had while analyzing the scope and gamut of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, concluded that in light of the words „Property is let‟ used in clause (c) of Sec. 23(1) of the „Act‟, unlike the term „house is actually let‟ as stands gathered from a conjoint reading of sub-section (2) to (4) of Sec. 23, it can safely and rather inescapably be gathered that the conscious, purposive and intentional usage of the aforesaid term „Property is let‟ in Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, cannot be substituted by the term „house is actually let‟ as used by the legislature in all its wisdom in sub-section (3) of Sec. 23. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the requirement that the „house is actually let‟ during the year is not to be taken as a prerequisite for bringing the case of an assessee within the sweep of Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟, as long as the property is let in the earlier period and is found vacant for the whole year under consideration, subject to the condition that such vacancy of the property is not for self occupation of the same by the assessee who continues to hold the same for the purpose of letting out. We are in agreement with the aforesaid observations of the coordinate bench that the usage of the term „Property is let‟ in Sec. 23(1)(c) had purposively been used to exclude those properties from the ambit of the clause which are held by the owner for self occupation purposes, because even though the „annual value‟ of oneself occupied property so chosen by the assessee is taken at Nil, however the „annual value‟ of all the remaining self occupied properties are to be determined in terms of Sec. 23(1)(a) of the „Act‟. Thus, to our understanding, though the term „Property is let‟ used in Sec. 23(1)(c) is solely with the intent to avoid misuse of determination of the „annual value‟ of self occupied properties by the assesses by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c), however, the same cannot be stretched beyond that and the „annual value‟ of a property which is let, but thereafter remains vacant for Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 9 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 the whole year under consideration, though subject to the condition that the same is not put under self occupation of the assessee and is held for the purpose of letting out of the same, would continue to be determined u/s 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟. Thus, in light of the aforesaid order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and the reasonings flowing there from, we are of the considered view that the assessee in the present case had rightly determined the „annual value‟ of the property at Nil by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟.
8. We may further observe that the CIT(A) had misconceived the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP). We find that in the said judgment the Hon‟ble High Court in the concluding Para 14 & 15 had observed that though the benefit of computing the „ALV‟ u/s 23(1)(c) could not be extended to a case where the property was not let out at all, however the same would duly encompass and take within its sweep cases where the property had remained let out for two or more years, but had remained vacant for the whole of the previous year. Thus, we are of the considered view that now when in the case of the present assessee the property under consideration had remained let out for a period of 36 months, and thereafter though could not be let out and had remained vacant during whole of the year under consideration, but had never remained under the self occupation of the assessee, thus, no infirmity emerges from the computation of the „annual value‟ of the said property under Sec. 23(1)(c) of the „Act‟ by the assessee.
9. That in light of our aforesaid observations the Ground of appeal No. 1 and 2 of the assessee are allowed and the determination of the „annual value‟ of the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan at Rs. 81,99,360/- by the A.O by taking recourse to Sec. 23(1)(a), which thereafter was sustained by the CIT(A), is vacated. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside in terms of our aforesaid observations.
10. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 10 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 AY 2012-13
11. We shall now take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) has raised before us the following grounds of appeal :
" On the facts and circumstances of case and in law,
1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in computing the Annual Letting Value of the office premises at 90,19,296/- although the same ought to be taken as Nil under section 23(1)(c) of the Act.
2. The learned Assessing officer further erred in adopting deemed rent received of Rs. 81,99,360/- as per A.Y 2009-10 in respect of office premises at Balaji Bhavan and further appreciation of 10% while computing Annual Letting Value in the assessment order when during the previous year the said premises was lying vacant.
3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the plea of the appellant that the annual letting value under section 23(1)(a) of the premises at Balaji Bhavan for the vacant period should be computed by adopting the reasonable rent as per the municipal rateable value of the premises."
12. Briefly stated, the assessee company had filed its return of income for A.Y 2012-13 on 29.09.2012, declaring income of Rs. 1,25,34,810/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment under Sec. 143(2) of the Act.
13. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the „balance sheet‟ of the assessee revealed investments of Rs. 3,43,36,083/- in immovable properties. On being called upon to explain that as to why the deemed rental income of the aforesaid properties may not be brought to tax under the head "Income from house property", the assessee objected to the same. It was the claim of the assessee that the Unit No. 401 & 425 of project "Balaji Bhawan" had remained vacant for the entire year as the tenant viz. M/s Sterling Construction System Pvt. Ltd. had vacated the premises and no rent, whatsoever, had thereafter been received. The A.O found the aforesaid claim of the assessee as factually correct. It was Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 11 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 observed by the A.O that though the assessee had let out Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan to M/s Sterling Construction P. Ltd. for 36 months, vide agreement dated April, 2007 and had offered the rental income received therefrom as its "Income from house property" in the preceding years, but after the expiry of the license period of 36 months the licensee had vacated the property and conveyed its intention of not getting the license agreement renewed any further. The assessee in order to drive home its contention that the „annual value‟ of the property was to be taken at Nil, submitted that its case was covered by Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act. However, the A.O after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee did not find favour with the same. The A.O was of the view that as per Sec. 23(1)(a) of the Act, the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year was to be taken as the deemed „annual value‟ of the property under Sec. 22 of the Act. Further, the A.O held a conviction that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) could be pressed into service only when the property is actually let and had remained vacant for some period during the year. Thus, the A.O was of the view that as the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan was not at all let out during whole of the year under consideration, hence the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) would not be applicable in its case. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O computed the „annual value‟ of the property as per Sec. 23(1)(a) at Rs. 90,19,296/-.
14. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating at length on the contentions advanced by the assessee was however not persuaded to accept the same and upheld the order of the A.O in context of the issue under consideration.
15. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. We find that as the facts and the issues involved in the present appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13 remains the same as were there before us in the appeal of the revenue for AY 2011-12, as had been adjudicated by us hereinabove, thus, our order passed while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2011-12 shall apply mutatis Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 12 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13 mutandis for adjudicating the present appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2012- 13 viz. ITA No. 66/Mum/2017. The Ground of appeal Nos. 1 raised by the assessee is thus allowed in the same terms.
16. That as we have accepted the claim of the assessee that the „annual value‟ of the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan was rightly computed by it at Nil under Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act, thus, the Grounds of appeal nos. 2 and 3 wherein the quantification of the „annual value‟ by the A.O has been assailed before us, having been rendered as infructuous are dismissed.
17. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
18. That both the appeals of the assessee i.e ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 and ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. MANJUNATHA) (RAVISH SOOD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
भुंफई Mumbai; ददन ुंक 19.09.2018
Ps. Rohit
आदे श की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अऩीर थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.
3. आमकय आमक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)-
4. आमकय आमक्त / CIT
5. विब गीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भफ ुं ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. ग र्ड प ईर / Guard file.
सत्म वऩत प्रतत //True Copy// आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीऱीय अधिकरण, भफ ुं ई / ITAT, Mumbai Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-14(3)(2), Mumbai 13 ITA No. 2892/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 66/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2011-12 & 2012-13