DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI V. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY P.LD, MUMBAI

ITA 3350/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0947 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAROJ V MANIAR
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 3350/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) ACIT 3(2)(2), R. NO. 674, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. 212, PUSHPA VIHAR, OPP. COLABA POST OFFICE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 ./ ./ P AN/GIR NO. AAACP 5815 B ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. N. HEMALATHA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI & SHRI SAROJ V. MANIAR / DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27.01.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE AO'S DETERMINATION OF ALV IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE'S PROPERTY AT CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI AT RS. 51,00,000/ - , INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1) (A) AS AGAINST THE ALV DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 23 (1) (B) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SURGE ENTERPRISES LTD. ITA NO.5238/M/ 06, A.Y. 2003 - 04 WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY MADE BY T H E AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE FACTS OF SURGE ENTERPRISES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE RECORDS AND DETAILS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL INCOME OF RS.5,44,332/ - AS ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTY BEING A FLAT SITUATED AT CUFFE PARADE , MUMBAI ADMEASURING AREA AT 2100 SQ.FT, AND CONSIDERING THE LOCATIO N AND AREA OF THE PROPERTY, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON A LOWER SIDE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED HOW AND WHY THE ANNUAL VALUE ADOPTED APPEARED TO BE ON LOWER SIDE CONSIDERING THE FAIR RENT OF THE PROPERTY. IN RE SP ONSE, VIDE LETTER DATED 04. 03 . 2015, THE ASSESSEE M ADE AND FROM THE CONTENTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' IS NOT A TAX UPON RENT OF PROPERTY BUT ON INHERENT CAPACITY OF A BUILDING TO YIELD INCOME. HEN CE, THE STANDARD SELECTED MEASURE 'ANNUAL VALUE' OF 3 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. PROPERTY WAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THIS PURPOSE. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1) FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION - 22, ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE (A) THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABL Y BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR (B) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE. 4. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MADE NECESSARY ENQUIRY U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM MAKER TOWER CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND LEAVE & LICENCE AGREEMENTS HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES BEING FLAT NO.73 - A, 223A AND 93 - A AND OTHER ENQUIRIES WERE ALSO MADE IN SIMILAR LOCALITIES WHICH REVEALED THAT COMPARABLE RENTS RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES AS UNDER: FLAT NO. LOCATION AREA RATE PER MONTH PERIOD OF AGREEMENT TENURE OF AGREEMENT 73 - A MAKER TOWER 'A' CHS CUFFE PARADE 2100 SQ.FT. 2,50,000 28/06/09 TO 27/4/1 1 22 MONTHS 223 - A MAKER TOWER 'A' CHS CUFFE PARADE 21 00 SQ.FT. 1,52,000 11/8/09 TO 30/4/12 33 MONTHS 93 - A MAKER TOWER 'A' CHS CUFFE PARADE 21 00 SQ.FT. 4,25,000 15/6/09 TO 14/6/11 24 M ONTHS 103 MAKER TOWER 'F' CHS CUFFE PARADE 550 SQ.FT. 250 PER SQ.FT. = 1,37.500 1/10/11 TO 30/9/14 36 MONTHS OFTICE EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT - 239 PER SQ.FT. = 5,01,900 8/9/11 ONWARDS 3 YEARS FROM THE ABOVE CHART, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD OPTED TO RECEIVE VERY LOW RENT OF RS.45,361/ - PER MONTH. THEREFORE, A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE 'GROSS ANNUAL VALUE' OF THE PROPERTY LET OUT 4 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AT RS.51 LAKHS (4,25,000 X 12) BEING RENT RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. 93 - A MAKER TOWER A CHS CUFFE PARADE, BEING SIMILAR PROPERTY IN SAME BUILDING IN SAME W ING . IN REPLY, VIDE LETTER DATED 23/03/2015 ASSESSEE HAD REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS AND JUSTIFICAT IONS AND HAD MADE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS BUT FOUND THE SAME NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT A TAX UPON RENT OF A PROPERTY BUT ON INHERENT CAPACITY OF A BUIL DING TO YIELD INCOME. HENCE, THE STANDARD SELECTED MEASURE 'ANNUAL VALUE' OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THIS PURPOSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS IGNORED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO INVESTED THE SAID SECURITY DEPOSIT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ON WHICH IT HAD ENJOYED INTEREST INCOME. HENCE, T HE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE H AD ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE RATEABLE VALUE OF THE FLAT HAD BEEN FIXED AT RS.5,10,690/ - AND AS ACTUAL RENT RECEI VED WAS HIGHER THAN MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED RENTAL INCOME ACTUALLY RECEIVED. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE IN METR O S OR BIG CITIES LIKE DELHI, MUMBAI, CHENNAI, KOLKATA, MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES DETERMINE NET RATEA BLE VALUE AFTER DEDUCTING 10% OF GROSS RATEABLE VALUE, AND NET MUNICIPAL VALUATION THEREFORE REQUIRED ADJUSTMENT FOR DETERMINING REASONABLE EXPECTED RENT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. THUS, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE FACTS, FULL AMOUNT OF MUNICIPAL VAL UE CAME TO RS.5,67,433/ - WHICH 5 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. WAS GREATER THAN ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OF RS.5,44,332/ - . ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED AND CITED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLU DED THAT THE GROSS ANNUAL VALUE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY I.E. FLAT NO.103 - A TO BE SIMILAR T O THE RENT BEING FETCHED IN S AME PROPERTY AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND WAS ACCORDINGLY TAKEN AT RS.51 LAKHS AND THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HE AD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. 6. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTING TO FILE THE M UNICIPAL V ALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ANNUAL VALUE OF RS.51 LACS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD AS UNDER: 5.1.7 I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23. CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C) OF SECTION 23(1) ARE DEEMING PROVISIONS SPECIFYING THAT FOR T HE PURPOSES OF CHARGING TAX ON INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY U/S. 22, THE SUMS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID SUBSECTIONS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE 'ANNUAL VALUE' OF ANY PROPERTY. WHAT AMOUNT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED ANNUAL VALUE UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 23(1) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY SEVERAL COURTS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONA L COURTS. CONSISTENTLY AND UNIFORMLY VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE H AS TO BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 23(1). THIS IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM A PLETHORA OF DECISIONS INCLUDING DECISION OF HON'BLE MUMBAI ITAT IN I TO VS SURGE ENTERPRISES LTD. ITA N O .1593/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD: FO R THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HEL D THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE (ALSO REFERRED TO AS M UNICIPAL VALUATION/ RATEABLE VALUE) ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 27, 50, 835 SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23(1 )(A) OF THE ACT SINCE THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MOR E THAN THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED SHOULD BE THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S.23(1)(B)OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. 5.1.8 SIMILARLY, IN DCIT VS FTASIKTAL PREMCHAND SHETH ITA N O .52 38/M/06 (A. Y . 20 0 3 - 04 ) IT WAS HELD: FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE (ALSO REFERRED TO AS MUNICIPAL VALUATION/ RATEABLE VALUE) ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.27, 50,835 SHOULD BE THE DETERM INING FACTOR FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT SINCE THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YOAR TO YEAR, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED SHOULD BE THE ANNUAL VA LUE OF ME PROPERTY U/S.23(1)(B)OF THE ACT. 5.1.9 THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FIRST CONSIDER MUNICIPAL VALUE/RATEABLE VALUE AS THE BASE DEEMED FIGURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 23(1). IF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IS HIGH ER THAN THAT THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER IT AS THE DEEMED ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER CLAUSE (B). WHEN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE YEAR IS LESS THAN MUNICIPAL VALUE DEEMED AS ANNUAL VALUE UNDER CLAUSE (A) DUE TO NON - LETTING, THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) APPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT THE COPY OF SOCIETY BILL THAT GIVES THE MUNICIPAL LETTING VALUE. THEREFORE, CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 23(1) WOULD APPLY AND THE DEEMED ANNUAL VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE ACTUAL RE NT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR I.E. RS. 5,44,332/ - . AS LONG AS THE RENT RECEIVED EXCEEDS THE MUNICIPAL VALUE, THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING DEEMED ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH TAX HAS TO. BE CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. I N THE CASE OF ITO VS SURGE ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 23(1)(A) BASED ON LOCAL ENQUIRIES THAT REVEALED HIGHER RENTS IN SIMILAR PREMISES. 5.1.10 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO VERIFY THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF NOTIONAL ANNUAL VALUE OF RS. 51 LAKH. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. 7 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8 . I HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (IN ITA NO.1213 OF 2011 AND OTHERS DATED 08.06.2014) HAS EXPOUNDED AS UNDER: AS REGARDS MUNICIPAL VALUATION : 7 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. (I) WE ARE NO T IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A BONAFIDE RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT MUST BE DISCARDED STRAIGHTWAY IN ALL CASES. THERE CANNOT BE A BLANKET REJECTION OF THE SAME. IF THAT IS TAKEN TO BE A SAFE GUIDE, THEN, TO DISCARD IT THERE MUST BE COGENT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL; (II) THE MARKET RATE IN THE LOCALITY IS AN APPROVED METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE BUT IT IS ONLY WHEN THE AO IS CONVINCED THAT THE CASE BEFORE HIM IS SUSPICIOUS, DET ERMINATION BY THE PARTIES IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE CAN RESORT TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE PREVAILING RATE IN THE LOCALITY. THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE MAY NOT BE BINDING ON THE AO BUT THAT IS ONLY IN CASES OF AFORE REFERRED NATURE. IT IS DEFINITELY A SAFE GUIDE; (III ) IN THE EVENT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT COLLECTED AND REFUNDABLE INTEREST FREE AND THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION SHOWS A TOTAL MISMATCH OR DOES NOT REFLECT THE PREVAILING RATE OR THE ATTEMPT IS TO DEFLATE OR INFLATE THE RENT BY SUCH METHODS, THEN, AS HELD BY THE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN MONI KUMAR SUBBA 333 ITR 38 (DEL)(FB), THE AO IS NOT PREVENTED FROM CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. HE MUS T HAVE COGENT AND SATISFACTORY 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 SUPPRESSED THE PREVAILING RATE. THEN, THE ENQUIRIES THAT THE AO 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 AO 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 EXAM PLE, 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 OFFICE OR A BLOCK ON THE UPPER FLOOR MAY FETCH HIGHER RETURNS OR VICE VERSA. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MAGIC 8 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. FORMULA AND EVERYTHING DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CASE. HOWEVER, WE EMPHASIZE THAT BEFORE THE AO DETERMINES THE RATE BY THE ABOVE EXER CISE 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 AO THAT THE BARGAIN REVEALS AN IN FLATED 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 AO HE MUST, THEN, COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE AND MAKE THE DISCLOSURE TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO OBTAIN HIS VIEW; 9. FROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE NOTE THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS EXPOUNDED THAT THOUGH THERE CANNOT BE A BLANKET REJECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DEVIATE FROM THE SAME IF HE HAS COGENT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, I FIND THAT THE PREMISES UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IN POSH LOCALITY IN CUFFE PARADE , MUMBAI . THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS MADE DUE ENQUIRY AND GATHERED COGENT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL REGARDING THE APPLICABLE RENT IN SUCH PROPERTY IN SAME BUILDING AND SAME WING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT IDENTICAL PROPERTY IS FETCHING MONTHLY RENT OF R S.4,25,000/ - . I N SUCH C IRCUMSTANCES, THE RATE ABLE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED UPON COGENT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL. HENCE, DEPARTURE FROM THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DULY JUSTIFIED AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT GUIDELINES AS ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE, THE DECISION IS BASED ON HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S 9 ITA NO. 3350/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012 - 13) ACIT VS. M/S. PRADMAN TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. DECISION, THE SAME PREVAIL OVER T HE TRIBUNAL DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.01.2018 SD/ - (S HAMIM YAHYA ) MUMBAI ; DATED : 01.01.18 / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERN ED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI