Tribunal Grants Vacancy Allowance for Unleased Portions of Commercial Property, Overturns Prior Decision.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, granting the claimed vacancy allowance of Rs. 1,14,31,200 under section 24(1)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal determined that the building, being a single commercial entity with common facilities, qualified for the vacancy allowance for portions that remained vacant. The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals) decision, emphasizing that "property is let" should include properties intended for letting out, aligning with precedents in Premsudha Exports and Kamal Mishra v. ITO.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of annual value for vacant parts of the property under section 23 of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Allowability of Vacancy Allowance under Section 24(1)(ix)

The core issue revolves around whether the assessee is entitled to claim a vacancy allowance for portions of its commercial property, "Gateway Tower," which remained vacant during the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee claimed a vacancy allowance of Rs. 2,39,65,997 under section 24(1)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the vacant portions of the property. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, arguing that the vacant portions were independent and could be let out separately, thus not qualifying for the vacancy allowance. The AO relied on the Kerala High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Joy P. Jacob, which held that independent portions of a building should be considered separately for income from house property.

The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the assessee's appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT examined the provisions of section 24(1)(ix), which allows deduction for the proportionate annual value of the property that remained wholly unoccupied during the year. The Tribunal noted that the building was a single commercial entity with common facilities and services, making it a compact unit. The ITAT referenced the Mumbai Bench's decision in Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, which interpreted "property is let" to include properties intended for letting out, even if they remained vacant.

Issue 2: Determination of Annual Value for Vacant Parts of the Property under Section 23

The second issue pertains to the determination of the annual value for the vacant parts of the property. The assessee computed the annual letting value (ALV) of the property, including the vacant portions, and claimed the vacancy allowance accordingly. The AO, however, assessed the ALV of the vacant portions on a notional basis, disallowing the vacancy allowance for the parts that remained vacant throughout the year.

The ITAT analyzed the provisions of section 23(1)(c), which was amended effective from 1-4-2003, and the old provision of section 24(1)(ix) applicable for the assessment year 2001-02. The Tribunal concluded that both provisions contain the term "property is let," which should be interpreted consistently. The ITAT cited the Mumbai Bench's decision in Premsudha Exports, which held that the term "property is let" includes properties intended for letting out, regardless of whether they were actually let out during the relevant year.

Conclusion:

The ITAT found that the assessee's building was a single commercial entity with common facilities, and the vacant portions were part of this larger property. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) for the vacant portions of the building. The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and allowed the assessee's appeal, granting the claimed vacancy allowance of Rs. 1,14,31,200. The Tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of "property is let" should include properties held for letting out, aligning with the decisions in Premsudha Exports and Kamal Mishra v. ITO.

Result:
The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the claimed vacancy allowance was granted.

---