ACIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI V. BHARTI ANIRUDH KILACHAND, MUMBAI

ITA 1417/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87980 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REN T RECEIVED
• Keywords: Question of law; Notional interest

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 16(2) MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007. VS.` MRS. BHARATI ANIRUDH KILACHAND 95, NEPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI 400 006. PAN:-AACPK3751C APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 9.11.2010 OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2005-06. THE REVENUE H AS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A. O. HAS MERELY ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S. 23(L)(A) OF THE L T. ACT 1961 WITHOUT HAVING ANY MATERIAL SUPPORT OF THE SAME AND THE REN T RECEIVED AND OFFERED TO TAX DURING THE YEAR IS HIGHER THAN RATEABLE VALU E FIXED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. REVENUE BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA ASSESSEE BY SHRI DIPAL J. SHUKLA DATE OF HEARING 12.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.01.2015 ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 2 | P A G E 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST FREE DEPOSITES OF RS.2.25 CRORES IN RESPECT OF LETOUT PROPERTY DID NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL BEARING ON THE CALCULATION ON ANNUAL VALUE U/S. 23( 1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF BAKER TECHNICAL SERVICES (P) LTD. VS ITO 9(1)(2) MUMBAI 125 ITD 1 (MUM) WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND AD JUDICATION IS REGARDING WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 66. 67% SHARES IN THE FLAT NO. 213, SUNITA RIDGE ROAD, MUMBAI 6. THE SAID PROPE RTY HAS BEEN LET OUT TO BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI LTD. SINCE 1987 AS PER T HE LEAVE AND LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM TIME TO TIME. THE PRESENT RENT AT WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT TO M/S BANK O F TOKYO IS RS. 95,000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT AT RS. 2.25 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT INITIALLY T HE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 3.25 CRORE IN TH E YEAR 1996 AND SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS REDUCED TO 2.25 CRORE IN THE YEA R 1999. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS LINKED WIT H THE RENTALS OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION BY ADOPTING 12% INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT TO THE ANNUAL LETTING VALU E OF THE PROPERTY U/S 23(1)(A). ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 3 | P A G E 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING O FFICER BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A)A HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING O FFICER BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASHOK M. WADHWA DATED 10.09.2009 IN ITA NO. 5804/MUM/2008. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 2.25 CRORE WHICH IS FREE OF INTEREST AND, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HA S DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE RATE OF RENT DETERMINED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SUCH A HUGE AND DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT DOES ALWAYS INFLUENCE THE DETERMINATION OF REN T BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST IFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. STREETLITE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (2011) 336 ITR 348 (P&H) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECURITY DEPOSIT WHI CH WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE ACTUAL CONTRACTUAL RENT PER MONTH HAS NO RATIONALE WITH THE AGREED RENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED A DEV ICE TO CIRCUMVENT ITS TAXABLE INCOME. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED A HUGE AMOUNT WHICH IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE RENT PER MON TH, THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF RECEIVING THE FAIR MARKET RENT OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS AND CONSEQUENTLY REDUCED THE REN T. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MONI KUMAR SUBBA( 333 ITR 38). ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 4 | P A G E 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DETERMINED THE FAIR MA RKET RENT OF THE PROPERTY AS PER SECTION 23(1)(A) BUT HE HAS SIMPLY MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST TO THE ACTUAL RENT REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHEN THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (368 ITR 330). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROCEDURE IS STIPULATED U/S 23(1) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. AS PER THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FI RST DETERMINE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO FETCH THE RENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR AS PER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION 1 AN D THEN IF THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT, COMPARE THE SAME WITH THE ANNUAL/ACTUAL RENT R ECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE. THEREFORE, THE REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED TO BE FETCHE D BY THE PROPERTY BY LETTING OUT YEAR TO YEAR HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PE R SECTION 23(1)(A) AND IN THE CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LET OUT TH EN COMPARED THE SAME WITH THE REASONABLE EXPECTED RENT TO BE FETCHED AS DETERMINED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THIS SECTION. IF THE REASONABLE EXPECTED RENT IS FOUND TO BE MORE THAN THE ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER THEN THE REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED FROM THE LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY FROM YEA R TO YEAR DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (A) TO THIS SECTION WOULD BE THE ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT. TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLE RENT TO BE FETCHED BY THE ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 5 | P A G E PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONDUCT THE P ROPER ENQUIRY AND TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO FIND OUT THE PREVAILING FAIR MARKET RENT. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY E NQUIRY OR MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET RENT U/S 23(1)( A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY ADOPTING 12% INTEREST RATE ON THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS AND DETERMINED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY ADDING THE SAID NOTIONAL INTEREST IN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THIS POINT THAT IF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FINDS THAT THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS HAS THE EFFECT TO DEFLATE OR INFLATE T HE RENT AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. HOWEVER, HE MUST HAVE COG ENT AND SATISFACTORY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION AND WHICH WILL INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE CONCEALED THE REAL POSITION AS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (SU PRA) IN PARA 47 AS UNDER:- 47. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE RENT CONTROL LEGISLA TION IS APPLICABLE AND AS IS NOW URGED THE TREND IN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET SO ALSO IN THE COMMERCIAL FIELD IS THAT CONSIDERING THE DIFFICULTIES FACED IN EITHER R ETRIEVING BACK IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN METRO CITIES AND TOWNS, SO ALSO THE T IME SPENT IN LITIGATION, IT IS EXPEDIENT TO EXECUTE A LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS . THESE ARE USUALLY FOR FIXED PERIODS AND RENEWABLE. IN SUCH CASES AS WELL, THE C ONCEDED POSITION IS THAT THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED ON THE SAME BASIS AS NOTED ABOVE. IN THE EVENT AND AS URGED BEFORE US, THE SEC URITY DEPOSIT COLLECTED AND REFUNDABLE INTEREST FREE AND THE MONTHLY COMPENSATI ON SHOWS A TOTAL MISMATCH OR DOES NOT REFLECT THE PREVAILING RATE OR THE ATTE MPT IS TO DEFLATE OR INFLATE THE RENT BY SUCH METHODS, THEN, AS HELD BY THE DELHI HI GH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PREVENTED FROM CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY IN VESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. HE MUST HAVE COGENT AND SATISFACTORY MATERIAL IN HIS P OSSESSION AND WHICH WILL INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE CONCEALED THE REAL P OSITION. HE MUST NOT MAKE A GUESS WORK OR ACT ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THER E MUST BE DEFINITE AND POSITIVE MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE SUPPRESSED THE PREVAILING RATE. THEN, THE ENQUIRIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CAN MAKE, WOULD BE FOR ASCERTAINING THE GOING RATE. HE CAN MAKE A COMPARAT IVE STUDY AND MAKE A ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 6 | P A G E ANALYSIS. IN THAT REGARD, TRANSACTIONS OF IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR NATURE CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY OBTAINING THE REQUISITE DETAILS. HOW EVER, THERE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST SAFEGUARD AGAINST ADOPTING THE RATE ST ATED THEREIN STRAIGHTWAY. HE MUST FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT OR GIVEN ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS IS OF A SIMILAR NATURE, NAM ELY, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. HE SHOULD ALSO SATISFY HIMSELF AS TO WHETHER THE RA TE OBTAINED BY HIM FROM THE DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS IN RELATION TH ERETO CAN BE APPLIED OR WHETHER A DEPARTURE THEREFROM CAN BE MADE, FOR EXAM PLE, BECAUSE OF THE AREA, THE MEASUREMENT, THE LOCATION, THE USE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PUT, THE ACCESS THERETO AND THE SPECIAL ADVANTAGES OR BENEFI TS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN A HIGH RISE BUILDING BECAUSE OF SPECIAL ADVANTAGES AND BEN EFITS AN OFFICE OR A BLOCK ON THE UPPER FLOOR MAY FETCH HIGHER RETURNS OR VICE VE RSA. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MAGIC FORMULA AND EVERYTHING DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CASE. HOWEVER, WE EMPHASIZE THAT BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER DETERMINES THE RATE BY THE ABOVE EXERCISE OR SIMILAR PERMISSIB LE PROCESS HE IS BOUND TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION TO THE PART IES. HE MUST NOT PROCEED TO RELY UPON THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION AND DISBELIEVE THE PARTIES. THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BARGAIN REVEALS AN I NFLATED OR DEFLATED RATE BASED ON FRAUD, EMERGENCY, RELATIONSHIP AND OTHER CONSIDE RATIONS MAKES IT UNREASONABLE MUST PRECEDE THE UNDERTAKING OF THE AB OVE EXERCISE. AFTER THE ABOVE ASCERTAINMENT IS DONE BY THE OFFICER HE MUST, THEN, COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE AND MAKE THE DIS CLOSURE TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO OBTAIN HIS VIEW. 7. SINCE IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT THE EFFECT OF INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS AND TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET RENT EXPECTE D TO BE FETCHED BY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS PER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTI ON 23 THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS.MONI KUMAR SUBBA (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARA 51 TO 54 AS UNDER:- 51. WE QUITE SEE THE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF MS. VIS SANJEE THAT ORDINARILY THE LICENSE FEE AGREED BETWEEN THE WILLING LICENSOR OR A WILLING LICENSEE UNINFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD AFFORD RELIAB LE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 7 | P A G E LANDLORD MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECT TO GET FROM A H YPOTHETICAL TENANT. SHE HAS IN MAKING THIS SUBMISSION, ANSWERED THE ISSUE AND S UMMED UP THE CONCLUSION AS WELL. THEN, IT IS BUT NATURAL AND LOGICAL THAT IN T HE EVENT, THE TRANSACTION IS INFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OR VITIA TED BY FRAUD, OR THE LIKE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT A 'FAIR RENT' BASED ON THE OPINION OBTAINED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES. THERE AS WELL, WE DO NOT SEE AS T O HOW WE CAN UPHOLD THE SUBMISSIONS OF MR. CHHOTARAY THAT THE NOTIONAL RENT ON THE SECURITY DEPOSIT CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE DET ERMINATION. IF THE TRANSACTION ITSELF DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OF THE AFOR E STATED ASPECTS, THEN, MERELY BECAUSE A SECURITY DEPOSIT WHICH IS REFUNDABLE AND INTEREST FREE HAS BEEN OBTAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT THIS SUM OR THE INTEREST DERIVED THEREFROM AT BANK RATE IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DETERMINATION OR CONCLUSION OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO BE AWARE OF SEVERAL ASPECTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED IN SU CH TRANSACTIONS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IF THE LICENSE IS FOR THREE YEARS TH AT IT WILL OPERATIVE AND CONTINUING TILL THE END. THERE ARE TERMS AND CONDIT IONS ON WHICH THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BY PARTIES. THESE TER MS AND CONDITIONS ARE WILLINGLY ACCEPTED. THEY ENABLE THE LICENSE TO BE D ETERMINED EVEN BEFORE THE STATED PERIOD EXPIRES. EQUALLY, THE LICENSEE CAN OP T OUT OF THE DEAL. A LEAVE AND LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERT Y. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AS IF THE SECURITY DEPOSIT BEING MADE, IT WILL BE NECESSARILY REFUNDABLE AFTER THE THIRD YEAR AND NOT OTHERWISE. EVERYTHING DEPENDS UPON THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CASE AND THE NATURE OF THE DEAL OR TRANSACTION. THE SE ARE NOT MATTERS WHICH ABIDE BY ANY FIXED FORMULA AND WHICH CAN BE UNIVERS ALLY APPLIED. TODAY, IT MAY BE COMMERCIALLY UNVIABLE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AND, THEREFORE, THIS MODE OF INDUCTING A 'THIRD PARTY' IN THE PREMISES IS ADOPTE D. THIS MAY NOT BE THE TREND TOMORROW, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT WISH TO CONCLUDE THE MATTER BY EVOLVING ANY RIGID TEST. 52. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI AHUJA. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT EVEN IN THE CASES AND MATTERS BROUGHT BY HIM TO OUR NOTICE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BRUSH ASIDE THE RENT CONTR OL LEGISLATION, IN THE EVENT, IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE PREMISES IN QUESTION. THEN, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO UNDERTAKE THE EXERCISE CONTEMPLATED BY THE RENT CON TROL LEGISLATION FOR FIXATION OF STANDARD RENT. THE ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO OVERRIDE THE RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION AND WHEN IT BALANCES THE RIGHTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES HAS RIGHTLY BEEN INTERFERED WITH IN THE GIVEN CASE BY T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER MUST UNDERTAKE THE EXERCIS E TO FIX THE STANDARD RENT HIMSELF AND IN TERMS OF THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTRO L ACT, 1999 IF THE SAME IS APPLICABLE OR LEAVE THE PARTIES TO HAVE IT DETERMIN ED BY THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL UNDER THAT ACT. UNTIL, THEN, HE MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIE D IN APPLYING ANY OTHER FORMULA OR METHOD AND DETERMINE THE 'FAIR RENT' BY ABIDING WITH THE SAME. IF HE DESIRES TO UNDERTAKE THE DETERMINATION HIMSELF, HE WILL HAV E TO GO BY THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999. MERELY BECAUSE THE RENT HAS NOT BEEN FIXED UNDER THAT ACT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY OTHER DETERMINATION AND CONTRARY THERETO CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE AGAIN HAVING RE SPECTFULLY CONCURRED WITH ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 8 | P A G E THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH CO URT, WE NEED NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE ON THIS ISSUE. 53. THUS, APART FROM THE THREE ASPECTS NAMELY OF A MUN ICIPAL VALUATION, OF OBTAINING INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND THE PR OPERTIES BEING COVERED BY THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT BUT NO STANDARD RENT T HEREUNDER IS FIXED, OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN INVITED TO ANY OTHER CASE. S UFFICE IT TO HOLD THAT IN THOSE CASES AND TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION IS NOT INVITED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND REFERRED TO BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WOULD GOVERN THE ENQUIRY. 54. AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHEREVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADHERED TO THE ABOVE PRIN CIPLES, AND HIS FINDING AND CONCLUSION HAS BEEN INTERFERED WITH, BY THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, THE REVENUE CANNOT BRING THE MATTER TO THIS COURT AS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW CAN BE ARISING FOR DETERMINATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT. THEN, THE FINDINGS BY THE LAST FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, NAMELY THE TRIBUNAL AND AGAINST THE REVENUE SHALL HAVE TO BE UPHELD AS THEY ARE CONSIST ENT WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT BEFORE IT. IF THEY ARE NOT VI TIATED BY ANY PERVERSITY OR ERROR OF LAW APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, TH E APPEALS OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY OR I NVESTIGATION AND BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUCNED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 6 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 16-01-2015 SKS SR. P.S, ITA NO.1417/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: -2005-06 9 | P A G E COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI