RINA JAIN, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 6(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1573/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 201; 13

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.1573/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SMT. RINA JAIN 82, MAKER CHAMBERS III NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 VS. THE DCIT, CC - 6(4) AIR INDIA BUILDING, 19 TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN NO. AABPJ1883F ( ASSESSEE ) ( REVENUE ) ITA NO.836 /MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) ACIT - 17(3), ROOM NO. 137, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. SMT. RINA VIRENDRA JAIN 82, MAKER CHAMBERS - III NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN NO. AABPJ1883F ( REVENUE ) ( ASSESSEE ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANUJ KISNADWALA , A.R REVENUE BY : SHRI BHARAT ANDHALE , D.R DATE OF HEARING : 24 /02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 /0 3 /2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: THE PRESENT CROSS - APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 54, MUMBAI , DATED 30.11.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 29.07.2016 FO R A.Y. ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 2 2009 - 10 . WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN ASSAILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A). ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF THE PREMISES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AT CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI BY INCREASING THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE B Y 5 % EVERY YEAR INSTEAD 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, B AD 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 WH ICH 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, CHUNA BHATTI (EAST), MUMBAI AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE AT RS.1,39,785/ - . ON BEING QUERIED, THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE ALV OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE ANNUAL VALUE WAS FIXED BY THE MUNICIPALITY OR CORPORATION, THE SAME SHOULD B E ACCEPTED EXCEPT FOR IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED WAS FOUND TO BE HIGHER. HOWEVER, THE A.O DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR OF HIS CHARGE TO CONDUCT A MARKET ENQUIRY. AS PER THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE INSPECTOR, THE A.O DETERMINED THE ALV OF THE FLATS AT RS.2,51,97,600/ - (I.E BY ADOPTING A RENTAL RATE OF RS.42 / - PER SQ. FT.). AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 24 I.E @ 30% OF THE ALV , THE A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1 ,76,38,320/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 BEFORE THE CIT(A). OBSERVING, THAT THE RATEA BLE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUT HORITIES WAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A YARDSTICK, THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS O RDER DATED 29.12.2010 ALLOWED HIS APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER NECESSARY DELIBERATIONS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMITTED THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 3 OF THE A.O, WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND CONDUCT COMPLETE AND PROP ER VERIFICATION/INVESTIGATION FOR ARRIVING AT THE ANNUAL LETTABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION . DURING THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O OBSERVED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THE CIRCLE HAD CONDUCTED FIELD INQUIRY AND HAD FILED A REPORT DATED 23.12.2010 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TH E RENTAL RATE OF RS.42 / - PER SQ . FT. (RS. 446 / - PER SP. M TR.) WAS DETERMINED BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR ARRI VING AT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. ALSO, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 THE INSP ECTOR ATTACHED TO THE CIRCLE HAD CONDUCTED FIELD INQUIRIES AND HAD FILED A REPORT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE RENTAL RATE OF RS.45 / - PER SQ . FT. WAS DETERMINED BY THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SAID YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION W.R.T THE PREVAILING PROPERTY RENTAL RATE S AS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF WWW.MAGICBRICKS.COM , THE AVERAGE RATE FOR THE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES IN THE SPECIFIED AREA FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 - 13 WAS RS.50 / - PER SQ . FT. IT WAS 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 AR EA 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 U NDER 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 ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND HAD BEEN LOOKED INTO BY HIM IN A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND A.Y 2014 - 15, THE CIT(A) GOING BY THE VIEW THAT WAS TAKEN BY HIM WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2013 - 1 4 DIRECTED THE A.O TO COMPUT E THE ALV IN THE BACKDROP OF THE WORKING THAT WAS THEREIN ADOPTED BY HIM . ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A . O TO COMPUTE THE ALV AFTE R CONSIDERING THE MUNICIPAL RATEA BLE VALUE AS WAS DETERMINED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 4 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 AT RS.17,03,369/ - , WHICH WAS THEREAFTER INCREASED BY 5% YEAR AFTER Y EAR AND ALSO FURTHER INCREASED BY 1/9 TH OF THE SAID VALUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O WAS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) TO ADOPT THE AFORESAID METHODOLOGY AND DO A BACKWARD WORKING TO ARRIVE AT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10. 4. AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE OR DER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11, ITA NO. 6751/MUM/2018, DATED 05.02.2020. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL HAD VIDE ITS ORDER S FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND A. Y. 2010 - 11 HAD RESTORED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL S FOR BOTH YEARS TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11, THE TRIBUNAL NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) WHO HA D DIRECTED THE A.O TO RECOMPUTE THE ALV BY TAKING MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE AS THE BASIS AND INCREASE IT BY 5% EVER Y YEAR HAD VACATED THE SAME AND DIRECTED THAT THE ALV OF THE VACANT FLAT S BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. IN ORDER TO BUTTRES S HIS AFORESAID CLAIM THE LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 201 0 - 11, ITA NO.6751/MUM/2018 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD). FURTHER, THE LD. A.R ALSO TOOK US THR OUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12, A.Y. 2012 - 13 AND A.Y. 2013 - 14, ITA NO. 3893 & 3844/MUM/2017 AND ITA NOS. 445/MU M/2018, DATED 22.03.2019, (COPIES PLACED ON RECORD). IT WAS , THUS, SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT NOW WHEN THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE DID MERIT ACCEPT ANCE. 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 IN VOLVED IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES 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 ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 5 PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT HAVE BEE N 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 ENDORSED THE VIEW THAT WAS TAKEN BY THIS PREDECESSOR IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND DETERMINED THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY ADOPTING THE RENTAL RATE OF RS.42 / - PER SQ. FT. THAT WAS BACKED BY THE FIELD REP ORT DATED 23.12.2010 OF THE INSPECTOR ATTACHED WITH HIS PREDECESSOR . AS NOTICED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL RESTORE D THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE A.O, FOR THE REASON, THAT THE A.O HAD MERELY ACTED UPON THE INSPECTORS R EPORT WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY FURTHER INQUIRY, AND THUS HAD REMANDED THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A PROPER INQUIRY. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OBSERVING THAT AS THE A.O IN THE COURSE O F THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS HAD DESPITE SPECIFI C DIRECTIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INQUIRIES THUS, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE MERE ENDORSEMENT BY THE A.O OF THE ALV THAT WAS EARLIER DETERMINED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THAT WAS FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3), DATED 29.09.2010. BUT THEN, THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE VIEW THAT WAS TAKEN BY HIM WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND A.Y. 2014 - 15 DIRECTED THE A.O TO ADOPT TH E MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 I.E RS. 17,03,369/ - AS A BASIS, AND THEREIN DETERMINE THE ALV AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF 5% YEAR AFTER YEAR AND ALSO A FURTHER INCREASE OF 1/9 TH TO THE SAID VALUE TO ARRIVE AT THE ALV FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION. AS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. A.R, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 WHICH ALSO WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION HAD NOT FOUND FAVOUR WI TH THE SAME VIEW THAT WAS THEREIN TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) , WHO HAD ON SIMILAR LINES DIREC TED THE A.O TO RECOMPUTE THE ALV BY TAKING THE MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE AS THE BASE AND INCREASE IT BY 5% EVERY YEAR, AND HAD VACATED THE SAME. AT THE SAME TIME, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE AFORES AID APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11, ITA NO. 6751/MUM/2018, DATED 05.02.2020, RELYING ON ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12, A.Y. 2012 - 13, A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND A.Y. 2014 - 15, HAD THEREIN DIRECTED THE A.O TO DET ERMINE THE ALV OF THE VACANT FLATS AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE. IN FACT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUN AL THAT IN ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 6 CASE IF THE ALV DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE 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 CO MPLEX 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. WH EREAS, 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 T HE AFORESAID FAMILY MEMBER, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE HAS DISAGREED WITH THE AFORESAID DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE ALV AS PER MRV. IN FACT, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSES SMENT YEARS 2011 12, 2012 13 AND 2013 14, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ITA NO.3893/MUM./2017 & ORS., DATED 22ND MARCH 2019, HAS HELD THAT DETERMINATION OF ALV ON AD HOC BASIS BY MAKING 5% INCREASE OVER THE MRV IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THAT THE ALV OF THE VACANT FLAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF MRV. THE SAME VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 15, VIDE ITA NO. 547/MUM./2018, DATED 31ST JULY 2019. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE AS WELL AS IN CASE OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE ALV OF THE VACANT FLAT AS PER MRV. IN CASE, IT I S FOUND THAT ALV DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER MRV, THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES PRESENT APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 REMAINS THE SAME AS WERE THERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2010 - 11, WE, THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREIN DIRECT THE A.O TO DETERMINE THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS PER MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE. AS PER THE SAME TERMS, IN CASE IF THE ALV OF THE PRO PERTY IN QUESTION DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE, THE SAME SHALL BE ACCEPTED. 7. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ITA NO.836/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) 8. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS ASSAIL ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: ITA NOS. 1573 &836/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SMT. RINA JAIN VS. THE DCIT,CC - 6(4) 7 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE RATEABLE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES SHALL BE YARD STICK AND THE SAME CAN BE IGNORED IF IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRUE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE.? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A), WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.2,51,97,6007 - IS NOT CORRECT ? 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAV E TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY . 9. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS W.R.T THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) AS REGARDS THE DETERMINATION OF THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. AS WE HAVE DIRECTED THE A.O TO ADOPT THE MUNICIPAL RAT E ABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR COMPUTING I TS ALV FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS RENDERED AS MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS RECORDED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IN THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL I.E ITA NO. 1573/MUM/2019, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1573/MUM/2019 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IN ITA NO. 836/MUM/2019 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 .03 .2021 SD/ - SD/ - M. BALAGANESH RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATE: 03 .03 .2021 PS: ROHIT COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI