ACIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI V. NARESH CHANDER OBEROI, MUMBAI

ITA 1601/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5885 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARTI SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUJ KISNADWALALD
• Keywords: Gift; Fair market value; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.1601/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14) & ./ I.T.A. NO.5565/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15) ACIT 3(2)(2) ROOM NO. 674, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 / VS. SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI, 181 B JOLLY MAKER TOWER A, NO.1, 18 TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE COLABA, MUMBAI 400005. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAEPO-2381-A ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : MS. BHARTI SINGH- LD. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANUJ KISNADWALA - LD.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/08/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/08/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2013-14 AND 2014-15 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THEREFORE, DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 2 2. THE REGISTRY HAS NOTED A DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL FOR AY 2014-15. HOWEVER, PERUSAL OF COLUMN 9 OF FORM 36 FILED BY THE REVENUE WOULD SHOW THAT THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF ORDER APPEALED AGAINST HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 19/07/2018 WHICH, IN FACT, IS THE DATE OF APPELLATE ORDER. THE PROFORMA OF SCRUTINY REPORT AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE CORRECT DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER IS 06/08/2018 AND CONSIDERING THIS DATE, THE APPEAL IS, PRIMA-FACIE IN ORDER. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS AS ARGUED BEFORE US. 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 1601/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 WHICH IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-8/IT- 569/2015-16 DATED 25/11/2016 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,24,415 BEING ALV COMPUTED BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT FLAT NO. 31B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI -400 005 TREATING IT AS EXEMPT, EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED ONE OF HIS OWNED FLATS AS SELF OCCUPIED AND EXEMPT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,24,415/- BEING ALV COMPUTED BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF FLAT NO. 31B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400 005, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AS PER SECTION 23 OF IT ACT ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM ONLY ONE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTIES AS SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND IS OBLIGATED TO OFFER NOTIONAL RENT INCOME FROM OTHER HOUSE PROPERTIES, IF ANY. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,65,561/- BEING ALV COMPUTED BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT FLAT NO.171-B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400 005 BY HOLDING THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT LET OUT THEN THE ALV CANNOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED / DETERMINABLE. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ALV COMPUTED BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES VIZ. FLAT NO. 31B, MAKER TOWER AND FLAT NO. 171-B, MAKER TOWER @ 8% OF THE COST OF THE FLAT AS HELD BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF EMTICI ENGINEERING LTD., VS. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TAX [1997] 58 TTJ 27 (AHD.). 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O BE RESTORED. SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 3 4.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL WAS ASSESSED FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON 29/02/2016 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 539.29 LAKHS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.445.39 LAKHS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27/07/2013. AS EVIDENT FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT APPEAL IS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENTAL VALUE OF (I) FLAT NO.31B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI & (II) FLAT NO.171B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI. 4.2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONE SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY VIZ. FLAT AT 181B, JOLLY MAKER -1, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF WHICH WAS TAKEN AS NIL AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF ANOTHER FLAT NO. 171B, MAKER TOWER A&B, C.S. NO. 641, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI WAS OFFERED AS RS.60,000/-. THIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26/04/2012 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.14.54 CRORES. HOWEVER, DISREGARDING THE VALUE OFFERED BY ASSESSEE, LD. AO WORKED OUT NOTIONAL RENTAL VALUE @8% OF COST OF THE PROPERTY FOR 11 MONTHS WHICH WORKED OUT TO BE RS.106.65 LAKHS. AFTER ALLOWING STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30%, THE BALANCE NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME WAS ADDED INTO THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.3 THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PROPERTY SITUATED AT FLAT NO.31-B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEES SON. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS IN JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON IN THE RATIO OF 60:40. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIFTED HIS SHARE IN THE PROPERTY TO HIS SON VIDE GIFT DEED DATED SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 4 19/12/2012. NO RENTAL WAS OFFERED AGAINST THIS PROPERTY. IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED AS PER THE MARKET RATE DISREGARDING THE ANNUAL VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IN THOSE YEARS, HAD CONCURRED WITH ASSESSEES STAND, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE WAS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE LD. AO COMPUTED THE RENTAL VALUE FROM THE SAID PROPERTY @8% OF COST OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE NOTIONAL RENTAL VALUE FOR 262 DAYS (01/04/2012 TO 18/12/2012) WAS WORKED OUT TO BE RS.24.52 LACS WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ALLOWING FOR STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30%. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE RATE OF 8% AS ADOPTED BY LD. AO BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND PLEADED THAT THE RATEABLE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHALL BE THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE AS HELD IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RELYING UPON ITS OWN ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13 AND RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN PRAMILA H.SANGHVI V/S ITO [ITA NO. 2589/MUM/2011] DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENTAL VALUE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS COULD BE EXTRACTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 5.1.1 THIS GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS. 93,89,976/- MADE BY THE A.O. AS INCOME FROM SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY. THIS ISSUE HAD ALSO COME UP BEFORE ME IN THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. I HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF MY DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE BASIC ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE AL V FOR THE SECOND HOUSE OWNED AND SELF-OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TWO SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES, VIZ. 181B, JOLLY MAKER TOWER A NO. 1, 18 TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400005 (HENCEFORTH REFERRED TO AS PROPERTY 1) AND 31B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400005 (HENCEFORTH REFERRED TO AS PROPERTY 2). HE LIVES IN PROPERTY 1 WITH FAMILY. HE OWNS PROPERTY 2 ALONG WITH HIS SON, SHRI BHARAT OBEROI IN A 60% - 40% OWNERSHIP RATIO. FOR THE PROPERTY 1, THE APPELLANT DECLARED IT AS SELF OCCUPIED AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION. FOR PROPERTY 2, HE OFFERED RS 8,010/ AS ANNUAL LETTABLE VALUE (ALV) ON BASIS OF SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 5 LETTER GIVEN BY MAKER TOWER A & B CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI 400005. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS ALV. BASED ON HIS INSPECTOR'S REPORT, THE AO ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE AT RS. 56,94,5447- AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,16,7267-TOWARDS INCOME FROM SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY, BEING 60% OF THE ESTIMATED RENT. 5.1.1 IT IS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY 2 WHICH IS CO-OWNED BY THE APPELLANT'S SON IS ALREADY UNDER SELF OCCUPATION BY THE SON. THE PROPERTY IS THEREFORE ENCUMBERED AND 60% OF PROPERTY 2 CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO BE RENTED OUT TO AT FAIR MARKET PRICE. THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION REQUIRING JUDICIOUS APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN A SENSE, THE REMAINING 60% OF THE PROPERTY 2 CAN BE SAID TO BE UNDER NOTIONAL SELF OCCUPATION OF THE APPELLANT AS HIS OWN SON IS OCCUPYING IT. HAD THE SON BEEN LIVING WITH THE APPELLANT IN PROPERTY 1, IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED AS SELF OCCUPIED BY THE OCCUPANT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, DUE TO THE INDIVISIBILITY OF LIVING SPACE OF PROPERTY 2 IT CAN BE SAID THAT 60% IS NOTIONALLY OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THAT CASE, THAT PORTION OF 60% HAS TO BE TREATED AS SECOND SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT. 5.1.2 AT THIS STAGE, I FIND GUIDANCE IN A RECENT JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN ITA NO. : 2589/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2005-06 MS. PRAMILA H. SANGHVI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER QUOTED BELOW: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2011 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED IS REGARDING ANNUAL VALUE OF SECOND HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SELF OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED TWO HOUSE PROPERTIES ONE AT AHMEDABAD AND THE OTHER AT MUMBAI AND BOTH WERE SELF OCCUPIED. INCOME FROM MUMBAI PROPERTY HAD BEEN CLAIMED EXEMPT AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY (SOP) AND IN RESPECT OF AHMEDABAD PROPERTY ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ANNUAL VALUE AT RS.2,500/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SECOND SOP HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS IF THE SAME WERE LET OUT. HE, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE AT 6% OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY WHICH CAME TO RS.5,08,488/-AND AFTER ALLOWING STATUTORY DEDUCTION, HE DETERMINED HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AT RS.3,53,442/-. IN APPEAL CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE AO THAT ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SECOND SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY HAD TO BE DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) AS IF THE SAME WERE LET OUT. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE ID. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF SECOND SOP SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE (MRV). THE ID. AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS COVERED BY RENT CONTROL ACT, AND THEREFORE, ALV COULD NOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL ACT. THE ID. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING DETERMINATION OF ALV OF SECOND SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 6 HOUSE PROPERTY AT AHMADABAD WHICH WAS SELF OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE. INCOME FROM ONE SOP IS EXEMPT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 BUT THE INCOME FROM THE SECOND SOP IS TAXABLE AND FOR THIS PURPOSE ALV HAS TO BE DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) AS IF THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(4)(B). THEREFORE, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE SECOND HOUSE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF FAIR RENTAL VALUE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM THAT THE SECOND SOP WAS COVERED UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT. IN CASE RENT OF THE PROPERTY IS COVERED UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT, ALV CAN NOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED/DETERMINATE UNDER THE SAID ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHEILA KAUSHIK (131ITR 435). THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE AND AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5.1.3 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS COVERED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE IT AT MUMBAI QUOTED ABOVE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED WHEREIN IT STATES, 'IN CASE RENT OF THE PROPERTY IS COVERED UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT, ALV CAN NOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED/DETERMINABLE UNDER THE SAID ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHEILA KAUSHIK (131 ITK435).' 5.1.4 THE ANNUAL RATEABLE VALUE CERTIFIED BY THE MAKER TOWERS A & B CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. DT. 24 JUNE 2011 AT RS. 17,102/- HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE AO. THERE IS THEREFORE, NO OPTION BUT TO ACCEPT THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY AO ON BASIS OF LOCAL ENQUIRIES MADE BY INSPECTOR IS NOT AS PER LAW. THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,16,726A IS THEREFORE DELETED. 5.1.2 SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THE SAME FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT INVOLVED, FOLLOWING MY DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 93,89,9767- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENT OF SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, SUBMITTED THAT ONLY ONE PROPERTY COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN SELF-OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS ALL THE OTHER SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 7 PROPERTIES ARE TO BE ASSESSED AT FAIR RENTAL VALUE WHICH COULD BE FETCHED IN THE OPEN MARKET. THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO SUBMIT THAT MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FAIR RENTAL VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 23: - (I) MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN HARSH JAIN V/S DCIT [ITA NO. 2710/MUM/2013 17/07/2015] REVENUES APPEAL DISMISSED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITA NO. 1438 OF 2016 ON 05/02/2019 (II) MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN DCIT V/S LAXMI JAIN [ITA NO. 2118/MUM/2012 26/11/2014] REVENUES APPEAL DISMISSED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITA NO. 1285 OF 2015 ON 16/04/2018 (III) MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN ANAND KUMAR JAIN V/S ACIT [ITA NOS.3887,3665/MUM/2017 DATED 07/12/2018] FOLLOWED IN ITA NO.6836/MUM/2017 DATED 27/02/2019 (IV) MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN OWAIS M. HUSAIN V/S ITO [194 TTJ 102] (V) MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN PANKAJ WADHWA V/S ITO [IAT NOS. 5005,5007/MUM/2017 DATED 30/11/2018] OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT REVENUES APPEAL, IN EARLIER YEARS, HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, ALBEIT ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 7. UPON CONSIDERATION OF DECISIONS CITED BY LD. AR, WE FIND THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX IS SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY CATENA OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE IS A RECOGNIZED BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ALV. THE SAID PROPOSITION HAS DULY BEEN APPROVED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY [368 ITR 330] AS WELL AS IN SMT. SMITABEN N.AMBANI V/S CWT [323 ITR 104] WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY HONBLE COURT IN NUMBER OF DECISIONS. THEREFORE, NO INFIRMITY COULD BE FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN THIS REGARD. THE OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO SUPPORT THE SAID PROPOSITION. ADDITIONALLY, NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND IN THE REASONING OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN PARAGRAPH 5.1.1 THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER CO-OWNERSHIP WAS ENCUMBERED SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 8 PROPERTY AND COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO BE LET OUT AT FAIR MARKET VALUE. ALSO, NO FALLACY COULD BE FOUND IN THE LOGIC THAT DUE TO THE INDIVISIBILITY OF LIVING SPACE OF CO-OWNED PROPERTY, IT COULD BE SAID THAT 60% OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOTIONALLY OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WAS TO BE TREATED AS SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THEREFORE, FINDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 5565/MUM/2018: AY 2014-15 9. FACTS ARE PARI-MATERIA SIMILAR IN THIS YEAR EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENTAL VALUE WITH RESPECT TO ONLY ONE PROPERTY VIZ. FLAT NO.171B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN EARLIER YEARS, HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. SINCE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL, OUR OBSERVATION AS WELL AS CONCLUSION AS FOR AY 2013-14 SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THIS YEAR ALSO. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. CONCLUSION 10. BOTH THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH AUGUST, 2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09 TH AUG, 2019 KRK, PS SHRI NARESH CHANDER OBEROI ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 & 2014-15 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI