DCIT CC 6(4), MUMBAI V. SATYPAL JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 3656/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3656/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ) ITA NO. 3657/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ) DCIT-6(6) ROOM NO. 1952, 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 VS. SATYAPAL JAIN, C/O HARISH JAIN, 82, MAKERS CHAMBERS- III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400021 PAN: AABPJ1888Q APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 3917/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ) ITA NO. 3918/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ) SATYAPAL JAIN, 82, MAKERS CHAMBERS- III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400021 PAN: AABPJ1888Q VS. DCIT-6(6) ROOM NO. 1952, 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 APPELLANT RESPONDE NT REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH MOHAN (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 28.11.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS GROUP OF FOUR APPEAL, OUT OF WHICH TWO APPEAL BY REVENUE AND TWO CROSS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE SEPARATE ORDER OF ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 2 LD. CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI DATED 28.02.2017 AND 27.02.20 17 FOR AY 201 -12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. FOR BOTH THE YEARS, T HE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APP EAL, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE REVENUE IN APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THA T THE RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AS DETERMINED BY PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES IS THE YARDSTICK WHILE FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT SECTION 23 (1)(A) MANDATES THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE IS TEAM TO BE THE SUM FOR WHI CH THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO BE LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR? (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN IGNORING T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE LOCAL ENQUIRIES TO DETER MINE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTIES COULD BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FO R THE YEAR AS PER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE IT ACT? (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE ESTIM ATED RENT FOR THE PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME UNDE R SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUND OF APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12: (I) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ANNU AL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF THE PREMISES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AT CEN TRAL GARDEN COMPLEX CHUNNA BHATTI, MUMBAI AND GREEN FIELD, ANDH ERI, MUMBAI AT RS. 10,03,000/- INSTEAD OF RS. 7,72,608/- AND RS . 23,424/- RESPECTIVELY OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE OF THE SAID PREMISES. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT THE AFORESAID PREMISES WERE VACANT THROUGHOUT THE PREVI OUS YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT HAD RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE M UNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. (II) THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, ULTRA VIRES AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS AND ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 3 IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE.. 3. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE AS WELL AS BY ASSESSEE IN CROSS APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 3831/MUM/201 4 AND IN ITA NO. 3965/MUM/2014. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER UP TREBLE IN ASSESSEE JOHN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT IN REVENUES APPEAL HE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND SO FAR AS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). TH E LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN PRINCIPLE THE R EVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ORDER PASSED BY HONORABLE TRIBUNAL AND THE REVENUE ALREADY FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE AL SO GONE THROUGH THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESP ECTIVE PARTIES. FIRST WE ARE TAKING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN IT A NO. 3656/MUM/2017. WE HAVE SEEN THAT ON IDENTICAL G ROUNDS OF APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS (IN AY 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 2719/MUM/20 13, FOR AY ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 4 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 2718/MUM/2013 AND FOR AY 2008-09 IN ITA NO.2119 &2120/MUM/2012) PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20/01/2016 FOR READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- 1. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE PREFERRED AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI DA TED 09.1.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009- 10. AS COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEA LS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DETERMINING THE ALV OF T HE PROPERTY AS FIXED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS HAS BEEN DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007- 08 BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 2719 & 2718/M/2013 DATED 26.11.2015. 4. HOWEVER, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, REFER RING TO PARA-8 OF THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER SUBMITS THAT THE FIN DINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT 'IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS N OT REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL THAT ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT' ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, SINCE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER POINTED OUT CERTAIN MATERIALS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER I.E. THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S. 131 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE SOCI ETY AND THE INSPECTOR'S ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 23.12.2010, WHICH GO ES TO SHOW THAT THE ALV IS MUCH MORE THAN THE VALUE FIXED BY M UNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE EARLIER YEA RS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE I NSPECTOR'S REPORT, WHICH THE DR IS REFERRING TO HAS BEEN CONSI DERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE'S WIFE SMT. LAXMI JAIN, IN ITA NO. 2118/M/2012 DATED 26.11.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10, WHERE THE PROPERTIES ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME COMPL EX AND HELD ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 5 THAT THE ALV AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORI TIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS RELYING ON THE VERY SAME INSPECTOR'S REPORT DATED 23.12.201 0 IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ALSO AND DETERMINED THE ALV. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS FURNISHED BEFORE US I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND FIND THAT THE RE IS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE ORDERS PASSED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THIS YEAR. NO NEW MATERIAL HAS COME ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ALV OF THE VACANT FLATS SHOULD NOT BE FIXED AT SOME OTHER VALUE OTHER THAN THE MUNICIPAL VALUE. THERE IS NO C HANGE IN FACT THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT DURING THIS YEAR THERE ARE MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT THE ALV IS MORE THAN THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION MAY NOT BE CORRECT. WE FIND FRO M THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH ORDER DATED 26.11.2015 IN ITA NOS. 2 719/M/2013 AND 2718/M/13 IN ASSESEE'S OWN CASE THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEE'S FAVOUR HOLDING AS UNDER: 'APART FROM THE AFORESAID CONTENTION, HE SUBMITTED THAT ON MERITS ALSO, THE ISSUE OF ALV OF VACANT FLATS U/S 2 3(1)(A) IN THE SAME VERY COMPLEX STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GROUP/FAMILY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THAT THE ALV ON THE VACANT FLAT CAN BE DETERMINED AT A MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. NOT ONLY T HAT, NOW THE DETERMINATION OF ALV AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RATAB LE VALUE HAS BEEN PRINCIPALLY UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY, REPORTED IN [2014] 368 ITR 330. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR ON BOTH THE ISSUES I.E. L EGAL AS WELL AS ON MERITS, STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING IN THE ORDER AND ALSO THE VARI OUS TRIBUNAL ORDERS AS REFERRED AND RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN FLAT NOS. B-4/64, D -4/65, D-4/66 & B4/67 AT GREEN FIELD COMPLEX, HEAVEN VIEW, 4TH FLOOR, JOGESHWARI- SAT}PAL JAIN ITA NO. 2719/MUM/2013 ITA NO.2718/MUM/2013 4 VIKROLI LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 093 AS 'VACANT' AND HAS OFFERED THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF THE FLATS AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. THE AO REJECTED THE ASSESS EE'S CONTENTION WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON AND SOUGHT FOR INFORMATION FROM THE SOCIETY OF GREEN FIELD COMPLEX. IN RESPONS E THE SOCIETY IN ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 6 ITS REPLY, FURNISHED A COPY OF LEAVE AND LICENSE AG REEMENT OF A FLAT IN THE SAME COMPLEX SHOWING A MONTHLY REN T OF RS. I7,000/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THE AO AFT ER REDUCING/INDEXING THE AVERAGE ANNUAL RENT FEES OF 1 0% AND APPLYING THE SAME FOR AY 2006-07, HE WORKED OUT MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 10,550/- FOR EACH FLAT AND DETE RMINED THE DEEMED ALV AT RS. 5,06,400/- IN TERMS OF SECTION 23 (1)(A). THIS ACTION OF THE AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND T HAT NOWHERE AO HAS REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL THAT ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. ALV AS PER MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF VA LUATION AT LEAST IN CASES OF VACANT PREMISES. AS POINTED OUT BY LD. COUNSEL TRIBUNAL IN SERIES OF DECISIONS IN GROUP CASES THE TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR FACTS AND FOR SIMILAR COMPLEX HAS HELD T HAT, WHERE THE FLAT HAS BEEN LYING VACANT THEN THE ALV U/S 23( 1)(A) CAN BE VALUED AT MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. THE LISTS OF SUCH CASES ARE AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF ASSESSEE RELATION WITH ASSESSEE AY ITA NO ITAT MUMBAI DATE OF ORDER PARTICULARS OF PROPERTY WHETHER VACANT OR NOT REMARK 1 HARSH FAIN NEPHEW 2009-10 2710 OF 2013 17.7.15 CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX VACANT HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT AMOUNT TO BE TAXED U/S23( )(A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE 2 ARLAND JAIN BROTHER 2009-10 2709/13 17.4.15 CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX VACANT HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT AMOUNT TO BE TAXED U/S23(1)(A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE 3 LAXMI JAIN WIFE 2009-10 2118/12 26.11.1 4 CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX VACANT HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT AMOUNT TO BE TAXED U/S23(I )(A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE 4 RAMETIDEVI JAIN MOTHER 2005-06 2006-07 3268/11 3269/11 25.4.12 VACANT HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT AMOUNT TO BE TAXED U/S23( I )(A) OF THE ACT WOULD BE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE NOT ONLY IN THE AFORESAID CASES, BUT NOW HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 7 TYPOGRAPHY, REPORTED IN 1 - 20141 368 ITR 330 HAS UPHELD THAT MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE CAN BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMIN ING THE ALV U/S 23(1)(A). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT FOR DISTURBING THE ALV OR RENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE AO MUST HAVE COGENT AND SATISFACTORY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSES SION INDICATING THAT THE PARTIES HAVE CONCEALED THE REAL POSITION. HE MUST NOT MAKE A GUESS WORK OR ACT ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISE S. THERE MUST BE DEFINITE AND POSITIVE MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE SUPPRESSED THE PREVAILING RATE AND THE N ONLY THE ENQUIRIES CAN BE MADE, FOR ASCERTAINING THE MARKET RATE. THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT, IF THE STAN DARD RENT IS FIXED BY THE RENT CONTROLLER OR MUNICIPAL RATABLE V ALUE IS AVAILABLE THEN SAME IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS AN ALV. HE RE, IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RENTED OUT THE PROPERTY AN D THE RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS LESS BUT THE FLAT HAS BEE N LYING VACANT, THUS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT MUNICIPAL RATA BLE VALUE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF DEEMED AL V. ACCO RDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FB ILOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUN AL AND ALSO THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON 'B/C JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ARE TREATED AS AL/OWE D.' SIMILARLY IN THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE'S CASE THIS TRIBUN AL BY ORDER DATED 26.11.2014 IN ITA NO. 2118/M/2012 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 HELD AS UNDER: 'BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN SHOW ING THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF COUPLE OF PROPE RTIES IE., (I) GALA NO.311 AND (II) CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLE X. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF AL V OF THE PROPERTIES, ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE RATEABLE VALUES OF THESE PROPERTIES. AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE AND REJECTED THE COMPUTATION OF AL V OF THE SAID PROPER TIES AND HELD THAT A PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERT IES SHOULD REFLECT CORRECT ALV ACCORDINGLY, HE QUANTIFI ED THE ALVS AND THE CUMULATIVE ALV OF THE PROPERTIES W AS TAKEN AT RS. 1,65,51,6321- (GALAS ALV IS RS. 3,94,5081- A ND RS.1,61,57,1241- IS THE ALV OF OTHER PROPERTIES). OTHERWISE, ASSESSEE 'S COMPUTATION IN THIS REGARD W ORKED OUT AT RS. 94,181/IE., GALAS RATEABLE VALUE IS RS.5,880 1- AND OTHER PROPERTIES IS RS.88,3011-. AO RELIED ON THE I NSPECTOR'S REPORT OF COMPARABLE CASES IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVE D WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY. ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 8 DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, CIT (A) REJECTED THE AO'S METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF ALV OF THE SAID TWO PROPERTIES AND UPHELD THE ASSESSEE 'S RATE ABLE VALUE. FOR THIS, CIT(A) RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUD ING THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SMITABEN N AMBANI VS. CWT, 323 ITR 104 WHEREIN IT W AS HELD THAT RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES SHALL BE THE YARD STICK. AGGR IEVED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD DR RELIED ON V ARIOUS DECISIONS TO STATE THAT THE ALV AS DETERMINED BY TH E MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IS ONLY ONE OF THE FACTORS AN D SAME CAN BE IGNORED IF IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRUE ALV. LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAV ILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE GIT(A) AND REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDE RS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIA L PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE 3 PARTIES AND ON PER USAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF T HE HON 'B/C JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N AINBANI (SUPRA). THERE ARE MANY OTHER DECISIONS FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE SIMILAR LINES, THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE COVERED BY THE DECISIONS CITED IN GROUND N O.] OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE BINDING NATURE OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N AMNHA NI (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS AN ORDER AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. IN AN Y CASE, THE PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES IS NO BASIS FT.R ARRIVING AT TH E ALV OF THE PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISIONS OF THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AND REJECT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 9 2.2. SO FAR AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE IS CONCERNE D, THE BENCH HAS ALREADY DELIBERATED UPON THE SAME IN EARLIER PARAS OF THIS ORDER THAT TOO IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AFORESAID FINDING AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL WILL BE APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, BECAUSE THE FACTS, DOCUMENTS AND THE ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL. NO CO NTRARY FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER SIDE OR MORE SPECIFICALLY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. OUR VIEW FURTHER FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 AND 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF (ITA NO. 2119 AND 2120/MUM/2012) ORDER DATED 20/01/2016. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN BY THE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANAND JAIKUMAR JAIN, IN ITA NO.4243 AND 3830/MUM/2014, ORDER DATED 02/08/2016 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CAS E OF DCIT VS LAXMI SATYAPAL JAIN (ITA NO.4726 & 4831/MUM/2014) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: - THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE IS IN ACROSS APPEA L AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/03/2014 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI. FIRST, WE S HALL TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE EXTENT OF MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE AT RS.10,12,858/ - AS AGAINST MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OF RS.8,44,048/-, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREMISES AT CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX HAS BEEN CHA LLENGED AND FURTHER THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PREMISES AT CREATIVE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE PREMISES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AT RS.3,94,508/ - AGAINST RS.4,497/-, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS BASED ON MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, SHRI ANUJ KISH NADWALA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CONTENDED THAT THE TR IBUNAL, IDENTICALLY, DECIDED THE ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2014 (ITA NO.2118/MUM/2012 ), WHEREIN, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. THIS FACTU AL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY SHRI G. N. MAKWANA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 10 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION F ROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26/11/2014 FOR READY REFERENCE A ND ANALYSIS:- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 30.3.2012 IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI DATED 9.1.2012 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009- 2010. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT R ATEABLE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES SHALL BE YA RD STICK BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N. AMBANI VS. CWT 323 ITR 104. BY DOING SO , HE HAS IGNORED THE DECISION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IS ONLY ONE OF THE FACTS AND THE SAME CAN BE IGNORED I F IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRUE ALV. THESE DECISIONS ARE: 1. ITO VS. SPEARHEAD PROPERTIES (P) LTD. 46 SOT 208 2. TIVOLI INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD VS . ACIT 130 ITD 521 3. ITO VS. HANSA MOTOR WORKS 46 SOT 160 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT T HE DETERMINATION OF ALV OF HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.1,65,51,632/- (3,94,508 + 1,61,57,124) JIS NOT CORRECT AND SAME CANNOT BE EXCEED RS. 94,181/- (5,880 + 88,301) I.E., ALV AS DETERMINED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WH EN IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE ARE EVIDENCES TO SUGGEST THAT THE AO23.1 2.2010. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN SHOWING THE HOUSE P ROPERTY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF COUPLE OF PROPERTIES IE., (I) GALA NO.31 1 AND (II) CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF ALV OF THE PROPERTIES, ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE RATEABLE VALUES OF THESE PROPERTIES. AO COMPLETED THE ASSESS MENT U/S 143(3) OF THE AND REJECTED THE COMPUTATION OF ALV OF THE S AID PROPERTIES AND HELD THAT A PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERT IES SHOULD REFLECT CORRECT ALV. ACCORDINGLY, HE QUANTIFIED THE ALVS AN D THE CUMULATIVE ALV OF THE PROPERTIES WAS TAKEN AT RS. 1,65,51,632/ - (GALAS ALV IS RS. 3,94,508/- AND RS.1,61,57,124/- IS THE ALV OF OTHER PROPERTIES). OTHERWISE, ASSESSEES COMPUTATION IN THIS REGARD WO RKED OUT AT ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 11 RS.94,181/- IE., GALAS RATEABLE VALUE IS RS.5,880/- AND OTHER PROPERTIES IS RS.88,301/-. AO RELIED ON THE INSPECT ORS REPORT OF COMPARABLE CASES IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, CIT (A) REJECTED THE AOS METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF ALV OF T HE SAID TWO PROPERTIES AND UPHELD THE ASSESSEES RATEABLE VALUE . FOR THIS, CIT(A) RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N AMBANI VS. CWT , 323 ITR 104 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PROP ERTIES DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES SHALL BE THE YARD STIC K. AGGRIEVED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD DR RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS TO STATE THAT THE ALV AS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPA L AUTHORITIES IS ONLY ONE OF THE FACTORS AND SAME CAN BE IGNORED IF IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE TRUE ALV. LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIA L PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS R IGHTLY RELIED ON THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N AMBANI (SUPRA). THERE ARE MANY OTHER DECISIONS FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE SIMILAR LINES, THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE COVERED BY THE DECISIONS CITED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE PRESENT APPEA L. CONSIDERING THE BINDING NATURE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUD GMENT IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N AMBANI (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS AN ORDER AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR AN Y INTERFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. IN ANY CASE, THE PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES IS NO BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE ALV OF T HE PROPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 12 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET ANNUAL V ALUE OF OFFICE PREMISES NO.311 AT CREATIVE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND F LATS AT CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, AS PER MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE AT RS.8,48,545/- AND THE SAME WERE SHOWN AS VACANT. THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE A CT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THEREFORE, THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION IS NOT BINDING UPON THE DEPARTMENT FOR DETERMINING THE REASONABLE RENT, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN ITO VS MAKRUPA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 108 ITD 95 (BOM.). THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HOLD THAT THE RATEABLE VA LUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS PER MUNICIPAL LAWS, IS NOT REASONABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, THE TRIBUNAL, FOR A.Y. 2009-10, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DIS MISSED, AFFIRMING THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS). IN SUCH A SITUATION, ONE FACT IS OOZING OUT THAT UNLESS AND U NTIL CONTRARY FACTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD, NO OTHER DECISION IS EXPECTE D TO BE TAKEN. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION, EVE NT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RELIED UPON THE BINDING DECISIO N OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMITABEN N AMBANI VS CWT (323 ITR 104) (BOM.). BEFORE US, ALSO, THE REVENUE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 2.3. IF THIS ISSUE IS ANALYZED WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, IT CAN BE SAID THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY FACTS/MATERIAL, CONSISTENCY HAS TO BE MAINTAINED, FOR WHICH THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE FO LLOWING CASES SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. I. PARSHURAM POTTERY WORKS LTD. VS ITO 106 ITR 1 (SC) II. SECURITY PRINTERS 264 ITR 276(DEL.) III. CIT VS NEO POLYPACK PVT. LTD. 245 ITR 492 (DEL.) IV. CWT VS ALLIED FINANCE PVT. LTD. 289 ITR 318 (DEL.) V. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 13 VI. DCIT VS UNITED VANASPATI (275 ITR 124) (AT)(CHANDIGARH ITAT) VII. UNION OF INDIA VS KUMUDINI N. DALAL 249 ITR 219 (SC) VIII. UNION OF INDIA VS SATISH PANNALAL SHAH 249 ITR 221 IX. B.F.VARGHESE VS STATE OF KERALA 72 ITR 726 (KER.) X. CIT VS NARENDRA DOSHI 254 ITR 606 (SC) XI. CIT VS SHIVSAGAR ESTATE 257 ITR 59 (SC) XII. PRADIP RAMANLAL SETH VS UOI 204 ITR 866 (GUJ.) XIII. RADHASWAMY SATSANG VS CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) XIV. AGGARWAL WAREHOUSING & LEASING LTD. 257 ITR 235 (MP) THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, CONSISTENCY HAS TO BE FOLLOWED AND ONCE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, IF ANY VIEW IS TAKEN, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, NO CONTRARY VIEW IS TO BE TAKEN AS FINALITY TO THE LITIGATION IS ALSO A PR INCIPLE WHICH HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. BEFORE US, NO CONTRARY FA CTS OR ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT O F THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE, FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS VIDE ORDER DATED 26/11/2015 AND 20/01/2016., THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL FACTS, DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, AFFIRMING THE STAND OF T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TREBLE IN ASSESSEE JOHN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT, AND RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2011-12 IS D ISMISSED. ITA NO 3917/MUM/2017 BY ASSESSEE FOR AY 2011-12 ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 14 7. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF EARLIER YEARS THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL PASSED THE F OLLOWING ORDER : 3. IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.3965/MUM/2014), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,59,206/- INCREASING THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SU CH AN ENHANCEMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D NON-APPRECIATION OF FACTS IN PROPER PROSPECTIVE. W E FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN 323 ITR 104 (SUPRA) HAS THROWN LIGHT ON THE ISSUE. THE DECISION IN ITO VS SPEARHEAD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 46 SOT 208, IN TI VOLI INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 1 30 ITR 521 AND IN ITO VS HANSA MOTORS WORKS. 46 SOT 16 0 HAS ALSO DISCUSSED IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON AND ENHANCING THE ANNUAL INCREASE OF 5% TO THE RATEABLE VALUE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. SO FAR AS, THE OBSERVAT ION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) THAT MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT REVISED THE RATEABLE VALUE OF THE FLATS CANNOT BE A GROUND TO INCREASE THE SAM E AS THAT DECISION LIES WITH THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS NOT EXPECTED TO STEP INTO THE S HOES OF THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. BEFORE US, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE STILL THE FL ATS ARE NOT LET OUT DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (2014) 368 ITR 330 UPHELD THAT THE ALV O N THE VACANT FLAT CAN BE DETERMINED AT MUNICIPAL RATE ABLE VALUE. THUS, OUR VIEW HAS BEEN PRINCIPALLY UPHELD B Y THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOR MAKING ENHANCEMENT, THU S, EVEN OTHERWISE, SUCH AN ENHANCEMENT ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED. ADMITTEDLY, R ATEABLE VALUATION DEPENDS UPON SO MANY FACTORS LIKE LOCALIT Y, NEARNESS TO PARK, SEA, ROAD, JHUGGI CLUSTER, NEARNE SS TO EDUCATIONAL/SPORTS INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS, MEANS O F TRANSPORT ETC, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), THUS, THE APPE AL OF ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 15 THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE CONSEQUENT ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS DELETED. 8. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OW N CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT, AN D RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED SIMILAR OBSERVATION. ITA NO. 3656/MUM/2017 BY REVENUE FOR AY 2012-13 9. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE REVENUE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12. FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL. CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON IDENTICAL FA CTS AND ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO D ISMISSED WITH SIMILAR FINDING. ITA NO. 3918/MUM/2017 BY ASSESSEE FOR AY 2012-13 10. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTIC AL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12. FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL. CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL FAC TS AND ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO A LLOWED WITH SIMILAR FINDING 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 3656&3657 /M/2017 ITA NO. 3917&3918 /M/2017 SATYAPAL JAIN (AY 2011-1 2 &12-13 ) 16 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 28 /11/2018. SD/- SD/- N.K. PRADHAN PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 28.11.2018 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI