Dr. A.C. Sreeram, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1089/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57534 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: S PARTHASARTHI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.K SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.108 9/BANG/2010 (ASST. YEAR - 2007-08) DR. A.C SREERAM, NO.5, 10 TH CROSS, R.M.V EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 080. . APPELLANT PAN NO.ABJPS5828S. VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-5, BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S PARTHASARTHI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 15-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-03-2012 O R D E R PER SHRI N.K SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) II, BANGALO RE DATED 25.3.2010. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS A PPEAL: ITA NO.1089/B/10 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A), BANGALORE ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE DID. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A), OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OF PREVIOUS YEAR AND, THERE FORE, THE ANNUAL VALUE WOULD BE NIL AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23(1) OF THE I.T ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A), OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ANNUAL L ETTING VALUE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CALCULATED U/S 23(1) OF THE ACT ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE LAND APPURTENA NT THERETO AND ACCORDINGLY, THE VALUE IF ANY REQUIRED TO BE AS SESSED WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VALUE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLAN T. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION IS TO BE DISREGARDED IN THE CALCULATION O F ANNUAL VALUE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A), FAILED IN ADOPTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNUAL VALUE WITHOUT EX CLUDING THE EXTENT OF COST RELATED TO COST OF THE UNEXPLOITED L AND I.E, THE LAND IN EXCESS OF THE APPURTENANT LAND. EVEN, WHEN THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED, ON THE C OST OF INVESTMENT. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND OUGHT TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.1089/B/10 3 7. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT TH E APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE O F THE HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED VACANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED IN MEDICAL PRACTICE AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.7.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.54,56,951/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT, IN SHORT ). LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AT PLOT NOS.110, 111 AND 112, YARANDAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI INDUSTRIA L AREA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE, THE SAID PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,75,10,000/- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED R ENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY NO ANNUAL LETTABLE VALUE HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN RE SPONSE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 1. THE ASSESSEE OWNED AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AT PL OT NOS. 110, 111 & 112, SY. NOS. 57, 77 & 78, YARANDHAHALLI VILLAGE, ITA NO.1089/B/10 4 JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE, WITH FACTORY SHEDS MEASURING 6,400 SQ. FT. 2. THE PROPERTY WAS MEANT TO BE LET OUT. HOWEVER, DUE TO SLOW DOWN IN THE ECONOMY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET A PROPER TENANT FOR THE FACTORY SHEDS AND HENCE THE P ROPERTY WAS VACANT DURING THE YEAR. 3. THE ANNUAL MUNICIPAL TAX PAID FOR THE YEAR WAS RS.22,375/- BASED ON THE TAX LEVEL OF 20-40% ON THE ACTUAL LETTABLE VALUE IN BANGALORE, THE ANNUAL LETTABLE VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER MUNICIPAL VALUATION COULD BE IN THE REGION OF RS.93,000/- TO RS.1,12,000/- PER ANNUM. 4. THE PROPERTY IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH CO ULD BE OCCUPIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESIDENCE. HENCE S EC. 23(2) AND CONSEQUENTLY SEC. 23(4) ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PROPERTY. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ANNUAL VALUE WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED U/S 23(1)(A). THE PROPERTY BEING VACANT DURING THE YEAR, THE ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR WILL BE NIL.. 5. THE AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE VACANCY ALLOWANCE WAS ALLOWABLE T O THE ASSESSEE ONLY IF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS LET OUT AND WAS VACANT DURING ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHA SED THE PROPERTY WITH AN INTENTION OF LETTING IT OUT. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER LET OUT AND REMAINED VACANT ALL ALONG AND SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO. T HE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERT Y WITH AN ITA NO.1089/B/10 5 INTENTION OF LETTING OUT, THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NEV ER LET OUT AND AS SUCH WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR VACANCY ALLOWANCE U/S 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT WERE CLEARLY ATTRACTED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WORKED OUT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.18,75,000/- AND AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT, @ 30%, DETERMINED THE TAXABLE ANNUAL VALUE AT RS.13,12,850 /-, WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 6. THE A.O REFERRED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : 1) GOVINDOSS PURUSHOTHAMDOSS, 124 ITR 319 (SC) 2) J.K INVESTORS (BOMBAY LTD.,) 248 ITR 723 (BOM) 3) MAE PACKS, 230 ITR 60 (BOM) 4) DARSHANA MEHTA, 33 ITD 670 (BOM) 5) SHREELA KAUSHIK, 131 ITR 435 6) DEEWAN DAULAT RAJ KAPOOR, 122 ITR 700 (SC) 7. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OB SERVED THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED TO BE L ET OUT, HOWEVER THE SAME COULD NOT BE LET AND REMAINED VACANT DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AS THE PROPERTY WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 23(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, THE ANNUAL VALUE WOULD BE NIL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 22 OF THE ACT, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY WOULD BE ITA NO.1089/B/10 6 DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT R EASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THAT AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 23(1) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY, WHICH IS MADE LIABLE TO TAX IS NOT ITS ACTUAL INCOME IN TERMS OF MONEY BUT AN ARTIFICIAL OR STATU TORY INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVE D ANYTHING IN CASH OR ANYTHING WHICH WAS MONEY WORTH, WAS ENTIRELY BESIDE THE POINT, SINCE THE LEGISLATURE HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT TAX SHALL B E PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE BONAFIDE ANNUAL VALUE IRRESPECTIVE O F THE QUESTION WHETHER HE RECEIVED THAT VALUE OR NOT AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 22, EXPRESSION ANNUAL VALUE SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SUM FOR WHICH TH E PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE GROSS MAINTAINAB LE RENT AT RS.18,75,000/- BEING 5% OF RS.3,75,10,000/-, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY COST METHOD OF ANNUAL VALUE I.E ONE OF THE METHODS AS PER JUDICIAL RULING OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAKARLAL BABADHAI VS. ITO (1975) 100 ITR 97. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), ANOTHER METHOD WAS THE INTEREST COST METHOD. HOWEVER, THE ANNUAL VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE AO WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND REASONABLE. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UJJANNAPPA VS. CIT, (2002) 255 ITR 455. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.1089/B/10 7 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VER Y OUTSET STATED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI VS. DDIT (IT) IN ITA NO.1524/B /2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNIS HED. 10. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DR ALTHO UGH SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT COULD NOT CONTR OVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVING SAME CONSTITUTION IN THE CASE O F SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI (CITED SUPRA), WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEE N GIVEN IN PARA 8, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE EARLIE R LET OUT BUT REMAINED VACANT AND COULD NOT BE LET OU T FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THOSE WERE INHABITABLE. A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED B Y THE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH B IN THE CASE OF SMT. INDU CHANDRA VS. DCIT (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, ONE OF US (AM) IS THE SIGNATORY. IN THE CASE OF SMT . INDU CHANDRA (SUPRA), ADDITION WHICH WAS MADE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS DELETED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH C IN THE CASE OF PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2008) 110 ITD 158 6 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 (MUM) AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 11 AND ITA NO.1089/B/10 8 11.1 OF THE ORDER DATED 29.4.2011 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 11. AFTER' CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION REMAINED VACANT AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SHE MADE ALL THE EFFORTS T O LET OUT THE PROPERT Y, BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE LET OUT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS SITUATED AT 5TH FLOOR AND THE LIFT WAS NOT WORKING. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, T HE I . T.A.T . MUMBAI BENCH 'C ' IN THE CASE OF PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CC 10, MUMBAI (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IT WAS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1) CAN ONLY BE INVOKED IN THOS E CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT IN EARLIER YEARS OR IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE INTENTION OF LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SEEN FOR INVOKING CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1) FOR COMPUTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS/WAS LET OUT. [PARA II] THEREFORE, THE SOLE DISPUTE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, W AS REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS 'PROPERTY IS LET' IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23(1). ONE INTERPRETA TION SUGGESTED-BY THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE PROPERT Y SHOULD BE ACTUALLY LET OUT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . THIS INTERPRETATION WAS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23(1), THE PROPERTY CA N BE VACANT DURING WHOLE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . HENCE, BOTH THESE SITUATIONS CANNOT COEXIST THAT THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LET OUT ALSO IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR , AND THAT THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME Y EAR IS VACANT ALSO DURING WHOLE OF THE SAME YE AR . [PARA 12] THE SECOND INTERPRETATION SUGGESTED BY THE REVENUE WAS THAT TH E PROPERTY SHOULD BE ACTUALLY LET OUT DURING ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ITA NO.1089/B/10 9 AND THEN ONLY, IT COULD BE SAID. THAT THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT AND CLAUSE (C) WOULD BE APPLICABLE . THE TENSE OF THE VERB USED PRIOR TO THE WORD 'LET' IS PRESENT TENSE AND NOT PAST TENSE. IT MEANS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) TALK REGARDING THE RELEVAN T PREVIOUS YEAR AND NOT OF ANY EARLIER PERIOD AND IF THAT BE SO, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. [PARA 13] NOW THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT AND WORKABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS 'PROPERTY IS LET' IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1). FOR THIS, IT IS TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER ACTUAL LETTING OUT IS A MUST FOR A PROPERTY TO FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23(1). [PARA 15] FROM A READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 23, IT APPEARS THAT THE LEGISLATURES IN THEIR WISDOM HAVE USED THE WORDS 'HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET'. THIS SHOWS THAT THE WORDS 'PROPERTY IS LET' CANNOT MEAN ACTUAL LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE HAD IT BEEN SO, THERE WAS BE NO NEED TO USE THE WORD 'ACTUALLY' IN SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTIO N 23. REGARDING THE SCOPE OF REFERRING TO ACTUAL LETT ING OUT IN PRECEDING PERIOD, THERE WAS NO FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE, AS THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE PRESENT TENSE. EVEN IF IT IS INTERPRETED S O, IT MAY LEAD TO UNDESIRABLE RESULT BECAUSE IN SOME CASES, IF THE OWNER HAS LET OUT A PROPERTY FOR ONE MONTH OR FOR EVEN ONE DAY, THAT PROPERTY WOULD ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF 'LET OUT PROPERTY' FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLA USE (C) OF SECTION 23(1) FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE PRO PERTY, EVEN WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO LET IT OUT IN THE REL EVANT YEAR. NOT ONLY THAT, EVEN IF THE PROPERTY WAS LET O UT AT ANY POINT OF TIME EVEN BY ANY PREVIOUS OWNER, IT COULD BE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT PROPE RTY BECAUSE THE CLAUSE TALKS ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND NOT ABOUT THE PRESENT OWNER AND SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT IN PAST, IT IS A LET OUT PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH THE PRESENT OWNER NEVER INTENDED TO LET OUT THE SAME. ITA NO.1089/B/10 10 THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT IN PAST OR NOT. THESE WORDS DO NOT TALK OF ACTUAL LET OUT ALSO BUT TALK ABOUT THE INTENTION TO LET OUT. IF THE PROPERTY IS HELD, BY T HE OWNER FOR LETTING OUT AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO LET I T OUT, THAT PROPERTY IS COVERED BY CLAUSE (C) AND THI S REQUIREMENT HAS TO BE SATISFIED IN EACH YEAR THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING HELD TO LET OUT BUT REMAINED VACANT FOR WHOLE OR PART OF THE YEAR . ABOVE DISCUSSION SHOWS THAT MEANING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS 'PROPERTY IS LET' CANNOT BE 'PROPERTY ACTUALLY LET OUT'. THUS, IF A PROPERTY IS HELD WITH AN INTENTION TO LET OUT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR COUPLED W ITH EFFORTS MADE FOR LETTING IT OUT, IT COULD BE SAID T HAT SUCH A PROPERTY IS A LET OUT PROPERTY AND THE SAME WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE ( C ) OF SECTION 23(1). [PARA 16] IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS LET OUT A ND TO EARN RENTAL INCOME. COPY OF RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, WHERE FROM IT WAS EVIDENT THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTORS WAS AUTHORIZE D TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FIXED THE MONTHLY RENT AND THE SECURITY DEPOSITS OF THE PROPERTY. CONSEQUENT TO THE RESOLUTION, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED VARIOUS ESTATE AND FINANCE CONSULTANTS FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY AND THE REQUEST WAS ALSO DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ESTATE AND FINANCE CONSULTANTS. UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE SUITABLE TENANT ON ACCOUNT OF HEFTY RENT AND SECURI TY DEPOSITS. THUS , DURING THE WHOLE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE MADE CONTINUOUS EFFORTS TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS PROPERTY COULD BE CALLED TO BE LET OUT PROPERTY IN TERMS OF OBSERVATI ONS MADE IN FOREGOING PARAS. SINCE T HE PROPERTY HAD BEEN HELD TO BE LET OUT PROPERTY, ITS ANNUAL LETTIN G VALUE COULD ONLY BE WORKED OUT AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1) AND SINCE THE RENT RECEIVED OR ITA NO.1089/B/10 11 RECEIVABLE FROM THE SAID PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR WAS NIL THE SAME WAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . [PARA 18] ' 11 . 1 IN OUR OPINION THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE IS ON THE SAME FACTS, SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT, C.C.- I0,MUMBAI (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE TH E RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION DURING THE YEAR WAS NIL, THE SAME WAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.5, 6 & 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS INVOLVED ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF SMT. INDU CHANDRA (SUPRA). SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH B OF ITA T, LUCKNOW IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DELETED. 12. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI (CITED SUPRA), S O, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ITA NO.1089/B/10 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (N.K SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 21/03/2012 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.