HIGHTECH REALTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2728/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3978 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 2728 / MUM/ 201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 1 4 ) HIGHTECH REALTIES PVT. LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, RUCHI HOUSE, PLOT NO. 169, AAREY COLONY, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI - 400065. / VS. ITO WARD 12(2)(4) MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCH 0026 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 24 . 10 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31. 10 .2018 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08 .0 3 .201 2 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 20 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 20 1 3 - 1 4 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - [A] GROUNDS OF APPEAL; 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED A.O, ERRED IN ADDING RS 63,95,231. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.12.60.000/ - REVENUE BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SING H (DR) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH (AR) ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 2 (RS 18,0 0,000 - RS 5,40,000) BY OVERLOOKING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND VARIOUS EASE LAWS QUOTED THEREIN. 2. IN THE FUELS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EASE AND IN LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ADDING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 12,00,000/ - (SUBJECT 10 DEDUCTION OF 30%) ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT EVEN THOUGH THIS ADDITION WAS NEVER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE AMOUNTS TO ENHANCEMENT WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT AND ALSO OVERLOOKING THE JUDGMENT OF CIT V/S MONI KLMAR SUBBA REPORTED I N (2011) 333 ITR 38 (DELHI)(FB). 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED A.O, ERRED IN INITIALING PENALTY U/S 27L(L)(C) AND INTEREST U/S 234. RELIEF PRAYED: THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS AS FOLLOWS, 1. TO DELETE THE ADDITIO N OF RS 12,60,000/ - UNDER THE HEAD ''INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.' 2. TO QUASH THE ADDITION OF RS 12,00,000/ - MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WITHOUT NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT. 3. TO DELETE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 27L(L)(C) AND INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234, THE APPELLANT RESERVE RIGHTS TO ADD ALTER OR DELETE ANY PORTION OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE ITS CONCLUSION. THIS APPEAL IS FILED IN TIME AND MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED IN FULL. A DETAILED PAPER HOOK ALONG WITH CASE LAWS WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,17,190/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THEREF ORE, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE RENTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,00,000/ - PER ANNUM. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING THE MONTHLY RENT OF THE FLAT NO. 2 TO THE TUNE OF ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 3 RS.50,000/ - P.M. AS PER THE LEAVE & LICENCE AGREEMENT WHEREAS TH E SECURITY DEPOSITED WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,50,00,000/ - . THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE RENT AL VALUE OF THE FLAT NO. 2 SITU ATED IN THE SEALAND CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., 41, CUF E PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400005 WAS VERY LOW , THEREFORE, THE NECESSARY DETAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FLAT NO.10 WAS RECALLED AND ACCORDING TO THE DETAIL RECEIVED, THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE FLAT NO . 10 WAS FOUND TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,05,000/ - PER MONTH AND THE SECURITY DEPOSIT WAS FOUND TO THE TUNE OF RS.84,00,000/ - . THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY, THE MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE FLAT WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.91, 36,044/ - AND AFTER DEDUCTION U/S 24A OF THE ACT @ 30% I.E. TO THE TUNE OF RS.27,40,813/ - , THE INCOME OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.63,95,231/ - AND TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.64,61,230/ - . FEELING AGGR IEVED , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT AND ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA. NO. 5354/M/2017, THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSIDERING THE RENTAL VALUE ASSESSED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES FOR COMPUTING THE DEEMED RENT U/S 23(1) (A) OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPAR TMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTION. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 4 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA. NO. 5354/M/2017 ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA NO. 5 & 6 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARN ED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI P R CHAUHAN ARGUED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ALV COMPUTED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 23(1)(C) IS WITH OUT ANY BASIS AND HE STATED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AGREED THAT THE PROPERTY IS COVERED UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT AS THE BOMBAY IS GOVERNED BY RENT CONTROL ACT AND CIT(A) ALSO AGREED THAT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THE RATEABLE VALUE AS DETE RMINED BY BMC. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THIS ARGUED THAT ONCE THE PROPERTY VALUE IS DETERMINED BY RENT CONTROL ACT AND ALV DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IS IN EXCESS OF MARKET RATEABLE VALUE OF BMC, NO FURTHER FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEEMED RENT UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) OR 23(1)(C) CAN BE ESTIMATED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY [2014] 368 ITR 330 (BOMBAY), WHEREIN HE LD AS UNDER: - 4.6. WE HAVE AND AFTER CAREFUL READING OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN. WE RESPECTFULLY CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THIS FULL BENCH D ECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 47. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION 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 RETRIEVIN G BACK IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN METRO CITIES AND TOWNS, SO ALSO THE TIME 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 CONCEDED 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 SECURITY DEPOSIT COLLECTED AND REFUNDABLE INTEREST FREE AND THE MONTHLY ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 5 COMPENSATION SHOWS A TOTAL MISMATCH OR DOES NOT REFLECT T HE PREVAILING RATE OR THE ATTEMPT IS TO DEFLATE OR INFLATE THE RENT BY SUCH METHODS, THEN, AS HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PREVENTED FROM CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. HE MUST HAVE COGENT AND SATISFACTO RY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION AND WHICH WILL INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE CONCEALED THE REAL POSITION. HE MUST NOT MAKE A GUESS WORK OR ACT ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THERE MUST BE DEFINITE AND POSITIVE MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE SUPPRE SSED THE PREVAILING RATE. THEN, THE ENQUIRIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE, WOULD BE FOR ASCERTAINING THE GOING RATE. HE CAN MAKE A COMPARATIVE STUDY AND MAKE A ANALYSIS. IN THAT REGARD, TRANSACTIONS OF IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR NATURE CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY OBTAINING THE REQUISITE DETAILS. HOWEVER, THERE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST SAFEGUARD AGAINST ADOPTING THE RATE STATED 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, NAMELY, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. HE SHOULD ALSO SATISFY HIMSELF AS TO WHETHER THE RATE OBTAINED BY HIM FROM THE DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS IN RELATION THERETO CAN BE APPLIED OR WHETHER A DEPARTURE THEREFROM CAN BE MADE, FOR E XAMPLE, 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 BENEFITS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN A HIGH RISE BUILDING BECAUSE OF SPECIAL ADVANTAGES AND BENEFITS AN OFF ICE OR A BLOCK ON THE UPPER FLOOR MAY FETCH HIGHER RETURNS OR VICE VERSA. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MAGIC FORMULA AND EVERYTHING DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CASE. HOWEVER, WE EMPHASIZE THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINES THE RATE BY THE ABOVE EXERCISE OR SIMILAR PERMISSIBLE PROCESS HE IS BOUND TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION TO THE PARTIES. HE MUST NOT PROCEED TO RELY UPON THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION AND DISBELIEVE THE PARTIES. THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE BARGAIN REVEALS AN INFLATED OR DEFLATED RATE BASED ON FRAUD, EMERGENCY, RELATIONSHIP AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAKES IT UNREASONABLE MUST PRECEDE THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ABOVE EXERCISE. AFTER THE ABOVE ASCERTAINMENT IS DONE BY THE OFFICER HE MUST , THEN, COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE AND MAKE THE DISCLOSURE TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO OBTAIN HIS VIEW. 48. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI CHHOTARAY THAT THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A BONA FIDE RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT MUST BE DISCARDED STRAIGHTWAY IN ALL CASES. THERE CANNOT BE A BLANKET ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 6 REJECTION OF THE SAME. IF THAT IS TAKEN TO BE A SAFE GUIDE, THEN, TO DISCARD IT THERE MUST BE COGENT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL. 49. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MARKET RAT E IN THE LOCALITY IS AN APPROVED METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE BUT IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONVINCED THAT THE CASE BEFORE HIM IS SUSPICIOUS, DETERMINATION BY THE PARTIES IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE CAN RESORT TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE PR EVAILING RATE IN THE LOCALITY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE MAY NOT BE BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THAT IS ONLY IN CASES OF AFORE - REFERRED NATURE. IT IS DEFINITELY A SAFE GUIDE. 50. WE HAVE BROADLY AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. HENCE, THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF THE 'FAIR RENTAL VALUE' IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES NOT COVERED BY OR COVERED BY THE RENT CONTROL ACT IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN TERMS OF THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 51. WE QUITE SEE THE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF MS. VISSANJEE THAT ORDINARILY THE LICENSE FEE AGREED BETWEEN THE WILLING LICENSOR OR A WILLING LICENSEE UNINFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD AFFORD RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF WHA T THE LANDLORD MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECT TO GET FROM A HYPOTHETICAL TENANT. SHE HAS IN MAKING THIS SUBMISSION, ANSWERED THE ISSUE AND SUMMED UP THE CONCLUSION AS WELL. THEN, IT IS BUT NATURAL AND LOGICAL THAT IN THE EVENT, THE TRANSACTION IS INFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OR VITIATED 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 TO HOW WE CAN UPHOLD THE SUBMISSIONS OF MR. CHHOTARAY TH AT THE NOTIONAL RENT ON THE SECURITY DEPOSIT CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE DETERMINATION. IF THE TRANSACTION ITSELF DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OF THE AFORE STATED ASPECTS, THEN, MERELY BECAUSE A SECURITY DEPOSIT WHICH IS REFUNDABLE AND INTE REST 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 AWAR E OF SEVERAL ASPECTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IF THE LICENSE IS FOR THREE YEARS THAT IT WILL OPERATIVE AND CONTINUING TILL THE END. THERE ARE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON WHICH THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT IS EXECUT ED BY PARTIES. THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE WILLINGLY ACCEPTED. THEY ENABLE THE LICENSE TO BE DETERMINED EVEN BEFORE THE STATED PERIOD EXPIRES. EQUALLY, THE LICENSEE CAN OPT OUT OF THE DEAL. A LEAVE AND LICENSE DOES NOT CREATE ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERT Y. ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 7 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 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CASE AND THE NATURE OF THE DEAL OR TRANSACTION. THESE ARE N OT MATTERS WHICH ABIDE BY ANY FIXED FORMULA AND WHICH CAN BE UNIVERSALLY 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 ADOPTED. THIS MAY NOT BE THE TREND TOMO RROW, 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 CONTROL LEGISLATION, IN THE EVENT, IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE PREMISES IN QUESTION. THEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO UNDERTAKE THE EXERCISE CONTEMPLATED BY THE RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION FOR FIXATION OF STANDARD RENT. THE ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 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 THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER MUST UNDERTAKE THE EXE RCISE TO FIX THE STANDARD RENT HIMSELF AND IN TERMS OF THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 IF THE SAME IS APPLICABLE OR LEAVE THE PARTIES TO HAVE IT DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL UNDER THAT ACT. UNTIL, THEN, HE MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED 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 HAVE TO GO BY THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999. MERELY BECAUSE THE RENT HAS NOT BEEN FIXED UNDER THAT ACT D OES NOT MEAN THAT ANY OTHER DETERMINATION AND CONTRARY THERETO CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE AGAIN HAVING RESPECTFULLY CONCURRED WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE NEED NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE ON THIS ISSUE. 53. THUS , APART FROM THE THREE ASPECTS NAMELY OF A MUNICIPAL VALUATION, OF OBTAINING INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND THE PROPERTIES BEING COVERED BY THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT BUT NO STANDARD RENT THEREUNDER IS FIXED, OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN INVITED TO ANY OTHER CASE. SUFFICE 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. ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 8 5 . ON APPR AISAL OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDING, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS DULY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA. NO. 5354/M/2017 . THE SAID MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADJUDIC ATED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (2014) 368 ITR 330 (BOMBAY). THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE WHILE REPRODUCING THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) . IT IS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT ONLY VALUE FIXED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY CAN BE A RATIONAL YARDSTICK FOR COMPUTING DEEMED RENT U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN FULLY COVERED BY DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSE ES OWN CASE (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31. 10. 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R.BASKARAN ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 31. 1 0 . 2018 VIJAY ITA. NO. 2728/M/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 14 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE R ESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI