TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tead of Rs. 1,55,318/- offered by the appellant based on the municipal rateable value of the said premises. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rateable value was correctly determined and enhanced by the Appellant 3. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is illegal, bad iii law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of the natural justice. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 22.09.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 45,15,180/-. Subsequently, the assessment under Sec. 143(3) of the Act was framed on 29.10.2010, determining her income at Rs. 2,30,54,700/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had offered 'Annual Lettable Value' (for short 'ALV') of the flats owned by her at Central Garden Complex, S.M. Road, Chunabhatti (East), Mumbai as per the municipal rateable value at Rs. 1,39,785/-. On being queried, the assessee justified the ALV of the aforesaid pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as observed by the A.O that the aforesaid information was further supported from the details gathered from the website www.99acres.com, as per which the rental accommodation in the area in question was available at Rs. 52/- per sq. ft. during the financial year 2013-14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the A.O held a conviction that the ALV taken @ Rs. 42/- per sq. ft. by his predecessor while framing the original assessment under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.12.2010 was in order. Accordingly, the A.O endorsing the view adopted by his predecessor determined the ALV of the property under Sec. 23(1)(a) for the year in question i.e A.Y. 2009-10 at Rs. 2,51,97,600/- . After allowing deduction under Sec. 24 i.e 30% of ALV, the A.O made an addition of Rs. 1,75,29,598/- to the returned income of the assessee. As such, backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 254, dated 29.07.2016 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,20,54,700/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the aforesaid assessment order before the CIT(A). Observing, that the issue as regards determination of the ALV was recurring one in the assessee's own case and had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id order of the Tribunal therefore, the claim of the assessee for determining the ALV of the property in question as per the municipal rateable value did merit acceptance. 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, it was fairly admitted by the ld. D.R that the issue involved in the captioned appeal was squarely covered by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. As observed by us hereinabove it is the second round of appeal before us. The solitary issue involved in the captioned appeal hinges around the issue as regards the determination of the ALV of the property owned by the assessee viz. Flats at Central Garden Complex, S.M. Road, Chunabhatti (East), Mumbai, which were lying vacant during the year in question. As observed by us hereinabove, the A.O in the course of the 'set aside' proceedings had e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pal rateable value then, the same should be accepted. For the sake of clarity, we herein cull out the observations of the Tribunal in its order for A.Y. 2010-11, ITA No. 6751/Mum/2018, dated 05.02.2020, which reads as under: "8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts are, the assessee is the owner of certain premises in a housing complex which remained vacant during the year under consideration. However, in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee offered income from such house property by determining the ALV under section 23 of the Act as per MRV. Whereas, the Assessing Officer has determined the ALV on the basis of rent received by the assessee in the assessment year 2015-16. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the ALV by taking the MRV as the base and increase it by 5% every year. It is evident, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while giving such direction has followed the order passed by him in case of Smt. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, one of the family members. However, while deciding the issue in case of the aforesaid family member, the Tribunal in t....