TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the same on merits as argued before us. 3. First, we take up ITA No. 1601/Mum/2017 for AY 2013-14 which is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, [in short referred to as 'CIT(A)'], Appeal No. CIT(A)-8/IT- 569/2015-16 dated 25/11/2016 on following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,24,415 being ALV computed by the A.O in respect of the property at Flat No. 31B, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai -400 005 treating it as exempt, even though assessee has already claimed one of his owned flats as self occupied and exempt. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,24,415/- being ALV computed by the A.O in respect of the property of Flat No. 31B, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005, without appreciating the facts that as per Section 23 of IT Act assessee can claim only one of the house properties as self-occupied property and is obligated to offer notional rent income from other house properties, if any. 3. Whether on the facts and circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the ratio of 60:40. However, the assessee had gifted his share in the property to his son vide gift deed dated 19/12/2012. No rental was offered against this property. In the previous years, the annual value of this property was determined as per the market rate disregarding the annual value adopted by the assessee. The Ld. first appellate authority, in those years, had concurred with assessee's stand, against which the revenue was in further appeal before Tribunal. Following the same, the Ld. AO computed the rental value from the said property @8% of cost of the property and the assessee's share in the notional rental value for 262 days (01/04/2012 to 18/12/2012) was worked out to be Rs. 24.52 Lacs which was added to the income of the assessee after allowing for statutory deduction of 30%. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the rate of 8% as adopted by Ld. AO before Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that the Rateable value adopted by the Municipal Corporation shall be the fair rental value as held in various judicial decisions. The Ld. first appellate authority, relying upon its own order in assessee's own case for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 and relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in a recent judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. : 2589/Mum/2011 Assessment Year. 2005-06 Ms. Pramila H. Sanghvi Vs Income tax Officer quoted below: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 3.2.2011 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06. The only dispute raised is regarding annual value of second house property which was self occupied by the assessee. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee owned two house properties one at Ahmedabad and the other at Mumbai and both were self occupied. Income from Mumbai property had been claimed exempt as self occupied property (SOP) and in respect of Ahmedabad property assessee had shown annual value at Rs. 2,500/-. The AO observed that the annual value of the second SOP has to be determined as if the same were let out. He, therefore, estimated annual value at 6% of the investment made in the property which came to Rs. 5,08,488/-and after allowing statutory deduction, he determined house property income at Rs. 3,53,442/-. In appeal CIT(A) agreed with the AO that annual value of the second self occupied property had to be determined under section 23(1)(a) as if the same were let out. He accordingly conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied by the Maker Towers A & B Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Dt. 24 June 2011 at Rs. 17,102/- has also not been challenged by the AO. There is therefore, no option but to accept the same in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT. The estimation made by AO on basis of local enquiries made by Inspector is not as per law. The addition of Rs. 34,16,726A is therefore deleted. 5.1.2 Since the facts and circumstances are the same for this assessment year, except for the amount involved, following my decision for assessment year 2011-12 above, this ground of appeal is allowed. The assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 93,89,9767- made on account of notional rent of self-occupied property. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], drawing our attention to the statutory provisions, submitted that only one property could be considered to be in self-occupation of the assessee whereas all the other properties are to be assessed at fair rental value which could be fetched in the open market. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the following decisions to subm....