ACIT 12(1), MUMBAI V. SETH PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

ITA 3063/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3348 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I .TA NOS.3063 & 3064/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09 THE ACIT 12(1), MUMBAI / VS. M/S. SETH PROPERTIES, 2 ND FLOOR, SANDHANA RAYON HOUSE, D.N. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 01 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. ABIFS 2476F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL / RESPONDENT BY: NONE / DATE OF HEARING :11.08.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :07.09.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-23, MUMBAI DATED 01.01.2013 PERTA INING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. INSPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND DISPOSED OFF THESE APPEALS EX- PARTE ON MERITS. ITA NOS.3063 & 3064/M/2013 2 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROU NDS IN THESE TWO APPEALS EXCEPT FOR THE VARIATION IN THE ADDITIO N: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,11,35,086/- BEING THE DEEMED RENTAL INCOME FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY NOT OFFERING TRUE AND CORRECT RENTAL INCOME FROM AL L THE TENANTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,11,35,086/- BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 203-04 WHICH IS ST ILL PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 6701 OF 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ITA NOS. 1190 TO 1192 OF 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 B Y ORDER DATED 4.3.2015 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH UPHELD THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE TAXE D IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND RENT SHOULD BE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL ACT, AS THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE LANDL ORD AND THE TENANTS AND THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO WH Y THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED FOR THESE ASSESSMEN T YEARS ALSO, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJE CTION. ITA NOS.3063 & 3064/M/2013 3 5. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 OBSERVING AS UNDER: SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEA LS, THESE CAN BE DISPOSED OFF BY A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE FACT, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF S HOPS IN CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI AND DECLARED RS.33,19,541/- AS RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SHOPS, WHEREAS THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED THE INCOME AT RS. 31,56,251/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR/CALCULATI ON MISTAKE. HOWEVER, THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WHEREIN , THE RENT WAS DETERMINED AT THE RATE OF RS.1,42,200/- PER MONTH, PAYABLE BY BANK OF PUNJAB. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS.7,331/- PER MONTH, AS RENT RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED THE DEEMED RENTAL INCOME FROM TH ESE PROPERTIES AND THUS THE MARKET VALUE WAS ADOPTED AT RS.15,64,201/- FOR DETERMINING THE RENTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF OTHER UNITS APART FROM L-40. F ACT REMAINS THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN A. Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 FO R THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM AUGUST, 2003, THE RENT FOR PRIOR PERIOD OF FOU R MONTHS, I.E. APRIL 2003, MAY 2003, JUNE 2003 AND JULY 2003 WAS DETERMINED AT THE RATE OF RS.1,42,200/- ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WORKED OUT RENTAL INCOME OF HEMKUNT IBOP AS UNDER: DETAILS OF OFFICE/SHOPS AS PER ASSESSEE RENT (RS) PER MONTH AS PER HONBLE HIGH COURT PER MONTH (RS.) FOR F.Y. 2003-04 DEEMED VALUE PER MONTH (IN RS.) RENTAL INCOME OF BALANCE PROPERTIES (RS. 24,502- RS. 733) 23,769 (EXCLUDING-733) 733 = 1,56,420 50,72,233 RENTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR (RS. (50,72,233X12) 6,08,66,796/- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DEEMED RENTAL INCOME AT RS.6,08,66,796/-. AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N U/S.24(A) @ 30% TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.4,26,06,757/-. WE NOTE TH AT, AS OBSORBED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH CO URT HAS RETROSPECTIVELY DETERMINED AND FIXED RS.1,42,000/ - AS MONTHLY RENT FOR THE PREMISES OCCUPIED BY M/S. BANK OF PUNJAB, AND THE SAID ORDER OPERATED AS A FORMULA TO RETROSPECTIVELY ENHANCE THE RENTS BEING PAID BY ALL THE 39 PROTECTED TENANTS OF APPELLANT BY 19000% I.E. FROM RS. 23,769/- PER MONT H TO RS.50,72,233/- PER MONTH, I.E. (RS.6,08,66, 796/ - P.A.). THE REST OF THE BUILDING (OTHER THAN PREMISES ON 1ST FLOOR OCCUPIED BY BANK OF PUNJAB) I S OCCUPIED BY STATUTORY TENANTS AND THEY WERE PAYING STATUTORY RENT FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNJUSTIFIABLY ENHA NCED THE RENTAL INCOME OF ITA NOS.3063 & 3064/M/2013 4 THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/PRESU MPTIVE BASIS AS THE PRESUMPTIVE RENT WAS NEVER RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE BY 4 M/S SETH PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER THAT THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL DIRECTED PUNJAB NA TIONAL BANK TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,42,000/- (AS MESNE PROFIT/OCCUPA TION CHARGES/DAMAGES) IN THE COURT AND NOT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHICH B ANK OF PUNJAB WAS PAYING TO M/S. HEMKUNT CHEMICALS VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 05/07/2003. THE HONBLE DELHI COURT IN ITS ORDER DATED 29/07/2003 D ID NOT MENTION ANY AMOUNT, OR FIX/DETERMINE ANY ENHANCED RENT FOR M/S. BANK OF PUNJAB OR THE ASSESSEE'S 39 OTHER TENANTS AS ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF NARANG OVERSEAS(P)LTD. V. ACIT 111 ITD 1, HELD THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AGAINS T WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE MESNE PROFIT RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE AWARDED BY THE APEX COURT AT THE RAT E OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVATION OF USE AND OCCUP ATION FOR THE PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, THE SUM SO RECEIVED WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROPER PROSPECTIVE AND HE DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S 39 PROTECTED TENANTS WERE NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND BANK OF PUNJAB/HEM KUNT CHEMICALS AT ANY STAGE, THUS, THE ORDERS THERE IN HAD NO, AND COULD NOT HAVE ANY APPLICATION UPON THEM. THE ANNUAL VALUE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE LANDLORD/OWNER IS A STATUTORY RENT AMOUNT ON LY AND NOT THE ENHANCED AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE TENANT FROM THE SUB-TENANTS/ OCCUPANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE A MOUNT OF MONEY DEPOSITED, IN COURT, BY BANK OF PUNJAB IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSES SMENT YEARS AS RENT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF COMPENSATION/OCCUPATION CHA RGES, WHICH IS DIRECTED BY THE COURT TO BE PAID BY PARTY (IN THIS CASE BANK OF PUNJAB) AGAINST WHOM EVICTION ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED, WHICH IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S OWN FINDING IN PAGE-2 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED THAT IN JULY,200 3, BANK OF PUNJAB WAS DIRECTED TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.1,42,000/- PER M ONTH BY DELHI HIGH COURT. THIS AMOUNT (DEPOSITED BY BANK OF PUNJAB) WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATS AS RENTAL INCOME IS IN REALITY COMPENSATION FOR WRO NGFUL POSSESSION WHICH WAS DEPOSITED ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS B Y BANK OF PUNJAB, AND WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN A.Y.2007-2008, AND A.Y.2008-09. THERE IS WRONG PRESUMPTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BAN K OF PUNJAB AND NOT HEM KUNT CHEMICALS WAS THE ASSESSEES TENANT WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THAT AS PER SEC. 16(A) AND (B) OF THE DELHI RENT ACT NO TENANT WITHOUT THE PREVIOUS CONSENT IN WRITING OF THE LAND LORD HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBLET OR ASSIGN THE PREMISES OCCUPIED BY HIM. ONCE EVICTION ORDERS ARE PASSED TH E RELATIONSHIP OF LAND LORD/TENANT COMES TO AN END. THEREAFTER, THE LAND L ORD CAN BE AWARDED ONLY COMPENSATION BY THE COURT TILL POSSESSION IS HANDED BACK TO THE LAND LORD BY THE TENANT. THUS, THERE WAS A GROSS ERROR IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IN INCREASING THE RENTS OF ALL THE APPELLANT'S REMAINING 39 PROTE CTED TENANTS (BEING RS.23,769/- PER MONTH PAID TO THE APPELLANT BY ITS LAWFUL/ PROTECTED TENANTS) BY 19000% I.E. TO RS.50, 72,233/ - PER MONTH BECAUS E THESE LAWFUL TENANTS ARE ,PROTECTED TENANTS WHO ENJOY PROTECTION UNDER THE D ELHI RENT CONTROL ACT,1958. SEC 6A OF THE DELHI RENT ACT 1958 HAS RES TRICTED THE POWER OF LAND LORDS (I.E. 6 M/S SETH PROPERTIES. THE APPELLANT HE REIN) TO INCREASE RENTS BEYOND 10% AND THAT TOO ONLY AFTER EVERY 3 YEARS. ITA NOS.3063 & 3064/M/2013 5 2.2. SECTION 105 AND 107 OF THE TRANSFER OF TRANSF ER OF PROPERTY ACT DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHT ON ANY CIVIL COURT TO FIX THE RENT OF ANY PREMISES, WHICH IS A MATTER BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND THE LESSEE SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THE RENT ACT. THE APPELLANT IS EXPRESSLY BARRED FRO M RECEIVING ANY CONSIDERATION FOR CREATION OF A SUB-TENANT OR THE T ENANTS AS PER SEE 16(4) OF THE DELHI RENT ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE WITH IDENTICAL FA CTS IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) FOR A. Y. 2003- 04, WHEREIN, CIT(A) VIDE ORDER NO.CIT(A)- 23/ITO-12 (1 )(4)/IT-448/201 0-11 DATED 08/07/2011 HELD AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TENANTED PREMISES, I NCLUDING L-40, 1ST FLOOR PREMISES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE WAS A DISP UTE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL! COURT, AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE APPELL ANT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW MONEYS DEPOSITED UNDER COURT OR DER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT DETERM INED BY THE HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF L-40 WHICH WAS IN DISPUTE, HAS TREATED THE SAME AS RENTAL FOR THE BALANCE PROPERTIES AS RECEIVABLE AND THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT (I. E., DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RENTAL INCOME AS PER HIGH COURT ORDER AND AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT) HAS BEEN BR OUGHT TO TAX. FOR THE PROPERTIES OTHER THAN L-40, DEEMED VALUE OF REN TAL OF RS.34,61 ,623 PER MONTH HAS BEEN TAKEN. WITH REGARD TO L-40 ON SI MILAR BASIS (AFTER ALLOWING FOR COST INFLATION @ 20%), AMOUNT OF RS.1, 13,600/- PER MONTH HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE DEEMED RENTAL VALUE. IT IS FOUND, FIRSTLY THAT THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT WAS ONLY SPECIFI C TO L-40 PREMISES, WHICH WERE LET OUT TO HEMKUNT CHEMICALS FURTHER SUB LET TO 8ANK OF PUNJAB. THE PROPERTIES WERE UNDER THE DELHI RENT CO NTROL ACT. THE ITAT MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 35241MI2008 A.Y.2002-03 IN S HRI DEEPAK VASWANI V ITO WARD 12(2)(40 MUMBAI HAS LAID DOWN PR INCIPLES ON HOW THE DETERMINATION OF ALV IS TO BE MADE. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN CASE THE PROPERTY IS COVERED BY THE RENT CONTROL AC T, THE ANNUAL VALUE U/S 23(1) (A) CANNOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT DETER MINED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL ACT BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTION ON THE VALUE OF RENT AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHEELA KAUSHIK (113 ITR 435). THUS WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC ORDER IN RESPECT OF OTHER PROPERTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE EXTRAPOLATED THE R ENT USING THE BASIS OF THE COURT DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE L-40 PROPER TY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE RENTAL INC OME IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES OTHER THAN L-40 TO THE STANDARD RENT DET ERMINED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL ACT. AS REGARDS THE L-40 PROPERTY (UNDER DISPUTE), PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 25AA AND 25B HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION. SECTION 25AA OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT REALIZE RENT FROM A PROPERTY LET OUT TO A TENANT, AND SUBSEQUENT LY ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH RENT IS REALIZED, SUCH RECEIPT SHAL L BE DEEMED TO BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY' AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. SECTION 25B OF THE ACT MAKES A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR ARREARS OF RENT RECEIVED, A ND STATES THAT WHERE ITA NOS.3063 & 3064/M/2013 6 AN ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT BY WAY OF ARREAR S OF RENT FROM SUCH PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT CHARGED TO TAX IN ANY P REVIOUS YEAR, THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AS INCOME OF THE PREVI OUS YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO R EMAIN THE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH ARREARS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT. (DEDUCTION OF 30% WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWABLE AGAI NST SUCH RECEIPT). IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT REC EIVED ANY AMOUNT EITHER BY WAY OF UNREALIZED RENT OR BY WAY OF ARREA RS IN AY 2003-04, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE COURT ORDERS (THE AMOUNT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AFTER DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT DATED 2 9/07/2007) AND AMOUNTS WERE RELEASED TO THE APPELLANT FROM 28/07/2 006. IN POINT OF FACT EVEN THE ORDER OF COURT DIRECTING DEPOSIT OF M ONTHLY AMOUNT OF RS. 1,42,000/-- IS DATED 29/07/2003, WHICH IS AFTER THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 7003-04. THUS IN VIEW OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTIONS 25AA AND 25B, THE INCOME (RECEIPT) IS TO BE TAXED I N THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN AY 2003-04. THE R ENTAL INCOME FOR AY 2003-04 WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL ACT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS THUS DELETED. ' 2.3. BEFORE US, NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY EITHER SIDE REVERSING THE AFORESAID ORDER, THUS, ON THE RU LE OF CONSISTENCY ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A GOOD CASE, THUS, THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS THE LEAD YEA R, WHEREIN, WE HAVE UPHELD THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHEREAS, THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS, ON IDENTICAL FACT, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, T HEREFORE, THE IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR THE LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS AUTOMATICAL LY DISPOSED OF IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.1A (ITA NO.6701/MUM/2011) I S CONCERNED NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY LD. DR AND GROUND NO. 3 WI TH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND VIOLATION OF RULE 46A IS NOT GERMANE O UT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IN LI NE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 AND RECOMPUTE THE RENTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.3063 & 3064/M/2013 7 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI