TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Patiala. (Self Occupied). 2. It was further observed that the property situated at Patiala was treated as self occupied. Further, since the assessee was owner of more than one house property, therefore, provisions of section 23(1)(4) of the Act were applicable and notional rent has to be charged. The Assessing Officer computed the annual value of the property No.B-7, Preet Vihar, New Delhi at Rs. 84,000/- and since the assessee was having ½ share, the same was taken at Rs. 44,000/-. In case of property No.G-1, Preet Vihar, New Delhi, the rent was taken at Rs. 72,000/- and again the assessee was owner of ½ share and the same was taken at Rs. 36,000/-. In case of flat situated in Bombay, the assessee was owner of ¼ share and the rent was taken at Rs. 1,20,000/-and the assessee's share was taken at Rs. 30,000/-. The rental income was determined at Rs. 82,500/- after allowing statutory deduction. 3. On appeal, it was contended that the Assessing Officer has taken annual value on a very high rate. It was contended that the assessee had purchased these properties and did not let them out and, therefore, the same remained vacant. Therefore, no annual valaue co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years 2003-04 to 2006-07. In view of the above it is held that rental income from Lovedale property is assessable under section 23(4) even for the remaining assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2007-08. Assessing Officer has estimated the rental income of Rs. 30,000/-each year which in my opinion is not logical and against the facts as assessee himself has shown rental income of Rs. 24,000/- in assessment years 2003-04,2004-05 and 2005-06 in his return of income as claimed by the AR. Accordingly, rental income for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 is required to be taken at Rs. 24,000/- only. The assessee has shown rental income from the above property at Rs. 30,000/- for the assessment year 2006-07 and no rental income for AY 2007-08. Accordingly, Assessing Officer's action of adopting rental income or Rs. 30,000/- for AY 2007-08 from the above said property is upheld. Assessing Officer is directed to compute the rental income as per directions given above." 8. It is seen that the CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the appellant with regard to the claim of NIL notional rent u/s 23(4). In fact the assessee's claim rests on the amended provision u/s 23(l)(c)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eave to a logical determination of fair rent. Therefore, the annual value determined by the Assessing Officer in respect of all the properties is directed to be confirmed.' 7. In our opinion, the learned CIT (Appeals) correctly decided the issue. He has clearly met with the contention that different view has not been taken in the case of Shri Manoj Singla. The learned CIT (Appeals) has reproduced the contents of the appellate order in the case of Manoj Singla in para 7 and reading of the same clearly shows that in the case of Manoj Singla the learned CIT (Appeals) observed that B-7 Preet Vihar property is commercial property and is not covered by the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. As far as Bombay flat is concerned, since the assessee has shown rental income in the earlier years, therefore, the income has to be charged. As observed by the learned CIT (Appeals), therefore, it becomes clear that even in the case of Manoj Singla it was never held that if the property was never let out, then no income can be charged. 8. Section 23 which provides for computation of annual value reads as under : "23. Annual value how determined.- (1) For the purposes of section 22, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins vacant for the whole year, in that case, nil value is to be computed or notional value of rent is to be computed? As pointed out by the learned CIT (Appeals), section 23(1(c) of the Act clearly stipulate the situation where the property has been let out that being if some property is rented out and the tenants leaves, then section 23(1)(c) of the Act would get activated. But ff the property has never been let out, then the provisions cannot be invoked because section 23(1)(c) of the Act is clearly applicable where the property was let out. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned CIT (Appeals) has rightly interpreted the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. Clearly, the property for which notional income has been computed by the Assessing Officer was never let out by the assessee, therefore, section 23(1)(c) of would not be applicable. 12. The learned counsel for assessee had also strongly relied upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Prabha Sanghi (supra). In our opinion, this case is distinguishable on facts. The learned counsel for assessee has strongly relied upon para 10 of this decision, which reads as under : "10. Now, as per Secti....