Mrs. Hameeda Banu, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1709/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61393 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA; VI KRAMADITYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1709, 1710 & 1711/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-98, 2004-05 & 2007-08) MRS. HAMEEDA BANU, LUZ VILLA, NO.18, BALAIAH AVENUE, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AABPH1627H (APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAMADITYA, JCIT & DR. S. MOHARANA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEARS, DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 1.7.2011 O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT, EACH APPEAL IS DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. 2 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 2. ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH A DELAY O F 12 DAYS FOR WHICH CONDONATION PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. SINCE REASO NS SHOWN IN THE CONDONATION PETITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY, THE DELAY I S CONDONED AND APPEALS ARE ADMITTED. 3. APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 IS TAKEN FIRS T FOR DISPOSAL. 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER RE TURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 1.9.1997 DECLARING AN I NCOME OF ` 2,70,100/-. THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY C OMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'T HE ACT') ON 27.3.2000, WAS SUBJECTED TO REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 6.3.2002. IN SUCH RE -ASSESSMENT, COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A KALYANA MANDAPAM AT KUMBAKONAM , WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. THE DIFFERENCE BET WEEN COST ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO , WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE WENT IN SUCCE SSIVE APPEALS AND THIS TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 500/MDS /2003 DATED 6.1.2006, REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP ONCE AGAIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, ONLY STATE PWD RATES COULD BE CONSIDE RED FOR THE VALUATION 3 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 OF KALYANA MANDAPAM AND NOT THE CPWD RATES. HOWEVE R, THE A.O. WAS NOT IMPRESSED. HE PERSISTED WITH CPWD RATES FOR VA LUING THE KALYANA MANDAPAM AND HELD AS UNDER:- THE PLINTH AREA RATES PREPARED BY THE TAMIL NADU S TATE PWD AND ALSO BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ARE AVAILABLE. IT IS P REFERRED TO USE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RATES DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REAS ONS. PLINTH AREA RATES CIRCULATED BY THE STATE PWD ARE T O BE USED ONLY FOR PREPARATION OF ROUGH ESTIMATE/APPROXIMATE E STIMATE FOR BUILDING SCHEME BASED ON LINE PLAN. WHEREAS THE GO VERNMENT OF INDIA RATES ARE APPROVED FOR VALUATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES VIDE CIRCULAR NO.1671 OF 1985 OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND AGAINST AS PER INSTRUCTION DATED 13.12.1998. THERE ARE ONLY TWO TYPES OF RATES AVAILABLE IN THE STATE PWD (I.E.) ONE FOR CHENNAI CITY AND THE OTHER FOR MOFFU SILS, WHEREAS THE RATES FOR ANY PLACE CAN BE WORKED OUT BY MULTIPLYIN G THE BASIC RATES BY COST INDEX IN THE CASE OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RAT ES. WHEN WE COMPARE THE STATE PWD PLINTH AREA RATES OF DIFFERENT YEARS WE CAN SEE THAT THE RATES FOR A PAR TICULAR YEAR IS ARRIVED AT BY ADDING CERTAIN ARBITRARY PERCENTAGE I NCREASE OVER THE RATE APPROVED FOR PREVIOUS YEAR, SAY 10 TO 15% ETC., WHEREAS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PLINTH AREA RATES, THE RATES AS ON THE DATE OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANY PLACE CAN BE WORKED OUT SCIENTI FICALLY BY ADOPTING THE MARKET RATE OF BASIC MATERIALS AND LAB OUR PREVALENT IN THE PARTICULAR PLACE AND THE PARTICULAR TIME. THE DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF BU ILDING FOR WHICH THE STATE PWD PLINTH AREA RATES ARE ISSUED HA VE NOT BEEN INDICATED, WHILE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RATES HAVE EXH AUSTIVE SPECIFICATIONS ENCLOSED WITH THE APPROVED RATES. ADAPTABILITY OF PWD RATE ARE VERY LIMITED, SINCE TH EY DO NOT HAVE RATES TO WORK OUT COST ADJUSTMENT FOR VARIATIO N IN FLOOR HEIGHT, FOUNDATION DEPTH AND OTHER SPECIFICATIONS, WHEREAS, IN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RATE, THESE TYPES OF MODIFICATI ONS CAN BE MADE. 4 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 HENCE PLINTH AREA RATES 1.1.92 APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ARE ADOPTED IN THIS REPORT. IN OTHER WORDS, ORIGINAL ADDITION OF ` 10,33,708/- WAS PERSISTED WITH. 5. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 50 0/MDS/2003 WAS NOT FOLLOWED. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, SUCH DIRECTION WA S CLEAR AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED APPLICATION OF STATE PWD RATE S FOR VALUING COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF KALYANA MANDAPAM. CIT(APPEALS), AF TER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT RE DUCTION OF 15% FROM COST ESTIMATED BASED ON CPWD RATES WOULD AUTOMATICA LLY GIVE A VALUATION AT PAR WITH STATE PWD RATES. RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF A. ABDUL RAHIM V. ITO (258 ITR 714) AND THAT OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M. SELVARAJ V. ITO [258 ITR (AT) 82]. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE-WORK THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY GIVING 15% REDUCTION ON THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUAT ION OFFICER USING CPWD RATES AND FURTHER DIRECTED TO ALLOW 10% REBATE FOR SELF- SUPERVISION AND 5% DEDUCTION FOR USE OF OLD MATERIA LS. 6. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT BY REDUCING 15% F ROM THE VALUE FIXED AS PER CPWD RATES, VALUE AS PER STATE PWD RATES CAN NOT BE RAISED. 5 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 ACCORDING TO HIM, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOL LOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT 15% REDUCTION OF COST FROM CPWD RATE S WILL AUTOMATICALLY BRING THE VALUE AT PAR WITH STATE PWD RATES. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE QUESTION IS REGARDING VALUATION OF KALYANA MAND APAM. THE MATTER HAD INITIALLY REACHED THIS TRIBUNAL WHERE IT WAS HE LD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SO FAR AS STATE PWD RATES HAVE TO BE ADOPTED, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN MA DRAS BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI M. SELVARAJ VS. ITO REPORTED IN 258 ITR ( AT) 82 HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE PROPERTY IS AT KUMBAKONAM IN OUR VIEW THE VALUE MUST BE AT STATE PWD RATES AND NOT A T CPWD RATES. THIS IS THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI M. SELVARAJ CITED SUPRA. THE LD. DR HAS NO T DENIED THE FACT THAT THE VALUATION REPORT WAS OBTAINED AFTER THE CO MPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THIS MADE US TO TAKE A VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A VALID OPPORTUNITY SO AS TO ASSIST THE REVENUE TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOU LD AFFORD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SITUATED AT KALYANA MANDAPAM WAS TO BE VALUED BASED ON STATE PWD RATES. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY LEARNED 6 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 D.R. TO SHOW THAT A REDUCTION OF 15% ON THE VALUE B ASED ON CPWD RATES WOULD GIVE A VALUE AT PAR WITH STATE PWD RATE S. UNLESS AND UNTIL THIS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN B Y THIS TRIBUNAL. NEVERTHELESS, WE ALSO NOTE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT GI VE A VALUATION BASED ON PWD RATES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER ONCE AGAIN FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTION S OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 500/MDS/2003 DATED 6.1.2006 IN LETTER AN D SPIRIT. ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE BEFORE THE A.O. A VALUATION BASED ON ST ATE PWD RATES AND ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL THEREAFTER PROCEED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. 9. APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. 11. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE HERE IS THAT A DEPREC IATION OF ` 4,34,332/- CLAIMED BY HER ON MOTOR CAR WAS NOT ALLO WED. 12. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, RUNNING A KALYANA MANDAPAM AND RETURNING INCOME THEREFROM UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, HAD CLAIMED A DEPRECI ATION OF ` 4,34,332/- 7 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 ON A NEW CAR PURCHASED. ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A C HEVEROLET OPTRA CAR DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. A.O. STATED THAT THE SAID VEHICLE WAS CLASSIFIED UNDER NON-TRANSPORT CATEGORY AND THE RE WAS NO CLAIM FOR EXPENSES TOWARDS FUEL. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RETURNED INCOME UNDER HIRE CHARGES FOR THE IMPUGNED AS WELL AS PRECEDING ASSE SSMENT YEAR. AS PER THE A.O., THE KALYANA MANDAPAM BUSINESS WAS CAR RIED ON IN KUMBAKONAM, WHEREAS, THE CAR WAS REGISTERED IN CHEN NAI. ASSESSEE HAD NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN CHENNAI. HE, THEREFORE , DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE CAR CONSIDERING IT TO BE PER SONAL IN NATURE. 13. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT IT HAD RETURNED HIRING CHARGES ALONG WITH INCOME OF KALYAN A MANDAPAM AS PART OF HER BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN THE EARLIER YEARS, AS SESSEE HAD ONLY A VAN, BUT, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ASSESSEE HA D BOTH CAR AND VAN WHICH WERE LET OUT TO THE MARRIAGE PARTIES. JUST B ECAUSE THE CAR WAS REGISTERED UNDER NON-TRANSPORT CATEGORY, DEPRECIATI ON CLAIMED OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, CIT(APPEALS) WA S NOT APPRECIATIVE. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE CAR WAS USED IN THE BUSINESS OF KALYANA MANDAPAM. HE, THEREFORE, S USTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 8 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 14. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON AN ASSET USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BU SINESS OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON A FLIMSY REASON. 15. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 16. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A NEW CAR DURING RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CAR MIGHT HAVE BEEN RE GISTERED AS NON- TRANSPORT CATEGORY VEHICLE, BUT, IN OUR OPINION THI S WILL NOT PRECLUDE AN ASSESSEE FROM USING IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSIN ESS. THERE IS NO RULE THAT EVERY VEHICLE OWNED IN A BUSINESS, EVEN IF USE D BY EMPLOYEES AND EXECUTIVES, ALSO SHOULD BE REGISTERED AS NON-TRANSP ORT CATEGORY VEHICLE. JUST BECAUSE THE CAR WAS REGISTERED IN CH ENNAI AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN KUMBAKONAM, WOULD NOT BE A R EASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A KALYANA MANDAPAM AND HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM SUCH KALYANA MANDAPAM UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THEREFORE, I TS CLAIM THAT THE CAR WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BRUSHED ASIDE. APART FROM THIS CAR, ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ON LY A VAN. THERE IS MUCH STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CAR WAS GIVEN FOR USE OF PERSONS USING THE KALYANA MANDAPAM. ASSESSE E HAD ALSO RETURNED HIRE CHARGES FROM THE VEHICLE, AS A PART O F HER BUSINESS INCOME. 9 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE DEPRECIA TION CLAIM OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED . 17. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 IS ALLOWED. 18. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08. 19. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVIN G 25% OWNERSHIP SHARE IN A PROPERTY WITH A BUILDING NAMED LUZ IN MYLAPORE, CHENNAI. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETURNED ANY INCOME FROM THIS PROP ERTY. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO RENTAL INCOME WHATSOEVE R WAS DERIVED FROM THE SAID PROPERTY DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT SHE HERSELF WAS OCCU PYING THE BUILDING. HOWEVER, A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED EXEMPTION FOR ONE BUILDING NEXT TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING, AS SELF- OCCUPIED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SAME EX EMPTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED FOR ANOTHER BUILDING ALSO. HE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE RENTALS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND C ONCLUDED THAT SAME AMOUNT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, A HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF ` 2,43,600/- WAS ADDED. 20. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT LUZ WAS LET OUT WITH GOOD RENTALS UPTO FINAN CIAL YEAR 2001-02. 10 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 HOWEVER, THE TENANT M/S ALDEN PRESS DID NOT RENEW I TS LEASE THEREAFTER. DURING 2005-06, A PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS COLLAPSED . DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE BUILDING AS A WHOLE WAS PULLED D OWN. THUS, IT WAS A VACANT LAND. FURTHER, ASSESSEE WAS LIVING IN THE P ROPERTY ADJACENT TO LUZ AND WHEN LUZ WAS RAZED TO GROUND, IT BECAME A PART OF THE SELF- OCCUPIED PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE DEMARCA TION WALL WAS BROUGHT DOWN. THEREFORE, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, NO I NCOME COULD BE CONSIDERED FROM LUZ FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. HOWEVER, CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT APPRECIATIVE. ACCORDING TO HI M, ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS USED BY HER FOR HER OWN RESIDENCE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROPERTY, WHICH W AS USED AS A PLAYGROUND ATTACHED TO THE RESIDENCE, COULD NOT BE TREATED AS PROPERTY IN OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HER O WN RESIDENCE. HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. DETERMINING THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 21. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE P ROPERTY WHERE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING AND WHERE THE PROPERTY LUZ WA S LOCATED, WERE ADJACENTLY SITUATED. THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED AN D IT WAS DEMOLISHED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE BUILDING CO ULD NOT BE OCCUPIED FROM 2005-06 WHEN ITS ROOF HAD COLLAPSED. THUS, TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES 11 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 CONSIDERED FOR HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME A BUILDING WHI CH WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE THAT TOO WHEN IT WAS ATTACHED TO SELF-OCC UPIED RESIDENCE AND BECAME PART OF SUCH SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY. FURTHE R, ACCORDING TO HIM, A.O. HAD RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF I NCOME TAX, WHICH WAS NEVER PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. 22. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E WAS RETURNING RENTAL AMOUNTS FROM LUZ IN THE EARLIER YEARS. AS SESSING OFFICER HAD VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AN INSPE CTOR OF HIS DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS REPORTED BY THE INSPECTOR THA T THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE REASONABLY FETCHED ` 17,40,000/- AS RENT DURING RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO S HOW THAT THE BUILDING HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED OR THE ROOF HAD COLLAP SED. IN ANY CASE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM EXEMPTION FOR IT AS SELF-O CCUPIED PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED. 23. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE BUILDING LUZ IN MYLA PORE, CHENNAI AND ASSESSEES RESIDENCE WERE ADJACENTLY SITUATED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE BUILDING WAS NO MORE RENTED AFTER FINANCIAL YEA R 2001-02 AND ITS ROOF HAD COLLAPSED, AND DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R, THE BUILDING WAS FULLY DEMOLISHED. ACCORDING TO HER, IT BECAME A PA RT OF HER SELF-OCCUPIED ADJACENT PROPERTY. WHATEVER MAY BE THESE ASSERTION S, THE A.O. HAD 12 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 MADE THE ADDITION FOR RENTAL INCOME BASED ON THE RE PORT OF HIS INSPECTOR. THIS IS CLEAR FROM PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SAID REPORT, AS PER THE A.O., MENTIONED THAT THE BUILDING WOULD HAV E FETCHED RENT OF ` 17,40,000/-. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT SUCH A R EPORT WAS NEVER PUT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HER REBUTTAL. FINDINGS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AT LOGGERHEADS. NOT HING IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO VERIFY WHICH OF THIS IS CORRECT. THE INS PECTORS REPORT WAS NEVER PUT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MAP AVAILABLE WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AREA, WHERE BUILDING LUZ STOOD AFTER DEMOLITION, BECAME LAND APPURTENANT TO SELF-O CCUPIED PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES FRESH LOOK BY THE A.O. WE SET ASIDE THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A .O. FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ASSESSEE SHALL BE G IVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HER CASE AND SHE SHALL ALSO BE SERVED WI TH THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR. 24. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 25. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 2007-08 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES, WHEREAS, HER APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS ALLOWED. 13 I.T.A. NOS. 1709 TO 1711/MDS/11 THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 26 TH OF JULY, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 26 TH JULY, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE