TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating amended provisions of Section 23(1)(c) which came into operation w.e.f 01/04/2002 as per Finance Act, 2001 and which is squarely applicable in the appellant's case. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the true purport and intend of Circular No.14 of 2001 dated 09/11/2001 issued u/s.119 of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes with regard to rationalization of provisions relating to "Income from House Property". 2.3 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in overlooking the Board's observation that due to the various amendments (as many as 8) made over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be read in a manner that if the property remained vacant throughout the year, the provisions of Sec.23(l)(c) do not apply at all. 2.9 The learned CIT(A) ought not have relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Susham Singla Vs CIT (76 taxmann.com 349) while rendering her decision, since the facts and circumstances of the case are distinguishable from the appellant's case. 2.10 The learned CIT(A) erred in omitting to consider that the appellant's claim u/s.23(1)(c) was allowed by the AO in the scrutiny assessment made for the AY 2012-13 and the same treatment should have been given for the A Y 2013-14 as well, applying the principle of consistency. 3.1 The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the property, as the same was vacant throughout the year, therefore, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee computed annual value of the property as per provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and determined gross annual value of Rs.1,15,94,161/- and computed income from house property at Rs.23,91,146/- after allowing standard deduction u/s.24(a) and interest on loan u/s.24(b) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee has contended the issue, in light of certain judicial precedents and argued that when the property was let out and it became vacant for whole or any part of the year, then annual letting value of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not let out at all and it became vacant throughout the year and in that context, it was held that when the property is not let out and became vacant for whole or any part of the year, then annual letting value of the property should be computed as per provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, property was let out in the past and became vacant only for the impugned assessment year, because of nonavailability of tenants. Further, the assessee has made its best efforts to find out tenants by reaching out to various agencies, which is evident from e-mail correspondence between the assessee and agents, therefore, it cannot be said that property is vacant and annual letting value of the property should be comput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 23(1)(c) of the Act. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to fact that property owned by the assessee was let right from assessment year 2008-09 to 2011- 12, however, same was vacant due to non-availability of tenants for the assessment year 2012-13 to assessment year 2013-14. But, same property was again let out from the assessment year 2015-16 onwards. The assessee has computed Nil annual letting value of the property in terms of provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the Assessing Officer has determined annual value in terms of provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mr. Vivek Jain Vs. ACIT (supra) to su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est efforts to let out the property which is evident from e-mail correspondence between the assessee and agents however, could not get tenants for relevant period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has rightly computed annual letting value of the property as per provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and this principle is supported by the decision of the ITAT., Mumbai Benches in the case of M/s. Sonu Realtors Pvt.Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), where an identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal and held that term 'property is let' used in section 23(1)(c) is solely used with intent to avoid misuse of determination of annual value of self-occupied property by taking recourse to section 23(1)(c), h....