Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Bangalore V. DDIT(E), Bangalore

ITA 1524/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51406 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: SRI V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 234B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1524/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI, # 103, EMBASSY CENTRE, 1 ST FLOOR, NO.11, CRESENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 .APPELLANT. PAN ABIPD3121E VS. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT), CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. .RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : MR. SRI V. SRINIVASAN. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE. DATE OF HEARING : 13.12.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2011. O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 28.09.2010 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, BANGALORE. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : 1. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS T HEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PRO BABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSE SSING THE ALV OF TWO PROPERTIES VIZ. FLAT NO.101 AND 102, VASTU APARTMEN TS, MUMBAI AND PROPERTY AT ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI AT RS.6,95,555 UNDER THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. THEY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT 2 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 THE AFORESAID PROPERTIES WERE VACANT DURING THE YEA R AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT OF ALV FROM THE SAID PROPERTIES WAS OPPO SED TO LAW AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME RETURNED REQ UIRES TO BE DELETED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WITH THE HONBLE CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED T O INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND THE LEVY DESERVES TO BE CA NCELLED. 4. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARD ED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INS TITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 2. GROUND NO.1 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHILE THE G RIEVANCE VIDE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6,95,565. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE BEING A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN FILED THE DIGITAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.51,54,846. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER RE FERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON 13.2.2008. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.20,26,60 4. THE BREAK UP OF WHICH WAS AS UNDER : PROPERTY AT NAME OF THE TENANT RENT RECEIVED RS. NO.105, EMBASSY EROS, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE. M/S. THOMAS WATER ASIA PVT. LTD. 537817 EMBASSY SQUARE, BANGALORE. M/S. BRITISH BIOLOGICALS . 404754 EMBASSY CASABALA, BANGALORE. M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD. 602028 THE EMBASSY, BANGALORE. M/S. INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. 482005 FLAT NO.405, 4 TH FLOOR, SOWMYA SPRINGS, 5/2, DIWAN MADHVA RAO ROAD, BANGLAORE. SELF OCCUPIED. NIL 3 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 FLAT AT ELDARADO, MUMBAI. NIL FLAT AT NO.101 & 102, VASTU APARTMENTS, MUMBAI. NIL PROPERTY AT ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI. NIL TOTAL : 2026604 FROM THE ABOVE CHART, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE OUT OF TOTAL ASSETS OWNED BY HER OFFERED ANNUAL LETTING VALUE FOR TAXAT ION FROM FOUR PROPERTIES ONLY AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON ONE PROPERTY FOR SELF-OCCUPATI ON AND OFFERED THREE PROPERTIES FOR NIL INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM, ALL THESE THREE PROPERTI ES WERE TAXED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND YIELDED INCOME. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE IN COME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WOULD BE TAXED ON ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE BASIS UNDE R SECTIONS 22 & 23 OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY NOTIONAL INCOME OF THE ABOVE SAID ASSETS COULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR TAXING PURPOSE. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE OFFERED EXPLANATION WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. IN RESPECT OF FLAT AT ELDORADO, IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT THE FLAT WAS A VERY OLD FLAT AND THEREFORE IS NOT IN A HABITABLE CONDITION AND A S SUCH THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO LET OUT THE FLAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER RE FERENCE AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ALV ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPERTY IS NIL AS PER SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. IN RESPECT OF FLAT APARTMENT NO.101 AND 102, VA STU APARTMENTS, MUMBAI, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FLAT WAS LET OUT TO HUNDAI ME RCHANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND HAD FALLEN VACANT DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE ALL HER BEST EFFORTS, COULD NOT FIND A TENANT FOR THE F LAT DURING THE YEAR. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT IS LET OUT TO TANZEEN PRINTERS DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 FOR RS.11,25,000 PER ANNUM. IN TERMS OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS ADOPTED AS NIL. 3. IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WAS VACANT DURING THE YEAR. SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IT IS LET OUT TO ZEHRA AND SABIHA KAZI AND THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.2,94,500 HA S BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX. IN 4 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 TERMS OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ANNUAL LE TTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS ION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY PROOF REGARDING THE EFFO RTS MADE TO LET OUT THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTIES. SO, IT WAS QUITE INCONVINCIBLE THAT T HERE CAN BE ANY HARDSHIP FACED IN LETTING OUT AND THAT THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED IN PRIME LOCALITI ES LIKE BANDRA IN MUMBAI AND ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI THAT THOSE PROPERTIES HAD FETCHED GOOD RENTALS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED NOTIONAL VALUE OF 70% ON THE RENT RECEIVED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND AFTER ALLOWING 30% FOR REPAIRS MAD E THE ADDITION OF RS.6,95,555 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF T HE TWO PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE VACA NT DURING WHOLE YEAR, THEREFORE, UNDER SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ANNUAL LETTING VAL UE (ALV) OF THOSE PROPERTIES WERE NIL AND HENCE SHE HAS ADOPTED NIL VALUE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION BY TAKING NIL VALUE FOR SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY BUT OTHER THAN ONE HOUSE THE ALV OF THE OTHER HOUSE /HOUSES SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) AS IF SUCH HOUSES ARE (I) LET AND (I I) IT WAS VACANT DURING SOME PART OF THE YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT COULD NOT BE LET THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WAS TO BE ACCEPTED, SECTION 23( 4)(B) COME INTO THE PICTURE AND ALV WAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT . HE THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE 5 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 DETERMINATION OF ALV BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C ORRECT. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE SINCE THE PROPERT Y REMAIN VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE YEAR AS SUCH THE ALV WAS NIL. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT B BENCH OF LUCKNOW IN THE CASE OF SMT. INDU CHANDRA VS. DCIT ( ITA NO.96(LKW)/2011 DT.29.4.2011) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND COPY OF THE ORDER W AS FURNISHED. 7. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE DEEMING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE AND ACC ORDINGLY ALV WAS REQUIRED TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE EARLIER LET OUT BUT REMAINED VACAN T AND COULD NOT BE LET OUT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THOSE WERE INHABITABLE. A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH B IN THE CASE OF SMT. IND U 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 DELETE D 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 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 THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUEST ION REMAINED VACANT AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SHE MADE ALL THE EFF ORTS TO LET OUT THE PROPERT Y, BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE LET OUT BECAUSE THE PROPE RTY WAS SITUATED AT 5 TH FLOOR AND THE LIFT WAS NOT WORKING. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE 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 PRO PERTY WAS TO BE SEEN FOR INVOKING CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1) FOR COMPUTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE 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 CL AUSE (C) OF SECTION 23(1). ONE INTERPRETATION 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 CLAU SE (C) OF SECTION 23(1), THE PROPERTY CAN BE VACANT DURING WHOLE OF T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . HENCE, BOTH THESE SITUATIONS CANNOT COEXIST THAT TH E PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LET OUT ALSO IN THE RELEVANT P REVIOUS 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 AND THEN ONLY, IT COULD BE S AID. THAT THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT AND CLAUSE (C) WOULD BE APPLICA BLE . 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 REGARD ING THE RELEVANT 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 CORR ECT AND WORKABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS 'PROPERTY IS LET' IN CL AUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1). FOR THIS, IT IS TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER ACTU AL LETTING OUT IS A MUST FOR A PROPERTY TO FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE (C) OF 7 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 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 BECA USE HAD IT BEEN SO, THERE WAS BE NO NEED TO USE THE WORD 'ACTUALLY' IN SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 23. REGARDING THE SCOPE OF REFERRING TO ACTUAL LETTING OUT IN PRECEDING PERIOD, THERE WAS NO FORCE IN THE CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE, AS THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE PRESENT TENSE. EVEN IF IT IS INTERPRETED SO, IT MAY LEAD TO UNDESIRABLE RESULT BECAUSE IN SO ME CASES, IF THE OWNER HAS LET OUT A PROPERTY FOR ONE MONTH OR FOR E VEN ONE DAY, THAT PROPERTY WOULD ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF 'LET OUT PROPE RTY' FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23(1) FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE PROPERTY, EVEN WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO LET IT OUT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. NOT ONLY THAT, EVEN IF THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT AT ANY POINT OF TI ME EVEN BY ANY PREVIOUS OWNER, IT COULD BE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPER TY IS LET OUT PROPERTY BECAUSE THE CLAUSE TALKS ABOUT THE PROPERT Y AND NOT ABOUT THE PRESENT OWNER AND SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS LET OU T IN PAST, IT IS A LET OUT PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH THE PRESENT OWNER NEVER INTE NDED TO LET OUT THE SAME. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT AS TO WH ETHER 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 T HE PROPERTY IS HELD, BY THE OWNER FOR LETTING OUT AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO LET IT OUT, THAT PROPERTY IS COVERED BY CLAUSE (C) AND THIS REQUIREM ENT HAS TO BE SATISFIED IN EACH YEAR THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING HELD TO LET OUT BU T 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 P ROPERTY IS HELD WITH AN INTENTION TO LET OUT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR COUPLED WITH EFFORTS M ADE FOR LETTING IT OUT, IT COULD BE SAID THAT 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 ENTIT LED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR ITS LET OUT AND TO EARN RENTAL INCOME. COPY OF RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, WH ERE FROM IT WAS EVIDENT THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTORS WAS AUTHORIZED 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 P ROPERTY. CONSEQUENT TO THE RESOLUTION, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED VARI OUS ESTATE AND FINANCE CONSULTANTS FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY AN D THE REQUEST WAS ALSO DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ESTATE AND FINANCE CO NSULTANTS. UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT GET THE SUITABLE TENANT ON ACCOUNT OF HEFTY RENT AN D SECURITY DEPOSITS. THUS , DURING THE WHOLE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE MADE CONTINUOUS EFFORTS TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS PROPERTY 8 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 COULD BE CALLED TO BE LET OUT PROPERTY IN TERMS OF OBSERVATIONS MADE IN FOREGOING PARAS. SINCE T HE PROPERTY HAD BEEN HELD TO BE LET OUT PROPERTY, ITS ANNUAL LETTING VALUE COULD ONLY BE WO RKED OUT AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23 (1) AND SINCE THE RENT RECEIVED OR 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-ORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT, C.C.-I0,MUMBA I (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION DURING THE YEAR WAS NIL, THE SAME WAS TO B E TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, THERE FORE, 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 BEN CH B OF ITAT, 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 LEARN ED CIT(A) IS DELETED. 9. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS THE COMM ON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. W E ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.12.2011.) S D/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE) (N.K. S AINI) JUDICIAL MEMB ER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 20.12.2011. *REDDY GP 9 ITA NO.1524BANG/10 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR - B BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) B Y ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE