VIRENDRAKUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 6(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3886/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5462 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANURAG AGARWAL
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJEET SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3886/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. VIRENDRAKUMAR JAIN, 82, MAKAR CHAMBERS III NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI PAN: AABPJ1882E VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), AIR INDIA BUILDING, 19 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI - 400021 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANURAG AGARWAL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL LETTI NG VALUE OF RS.5,10,016/- OF THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT CE NTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI AS MADE BY THE AO AS A GAINST RS.3,86,376/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. ITA NO.3886/M/2017 M/S. VIRENDRAKUMAR JAIN 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE P OINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE BY ORDER DATED 14.11.2017 IN ITA NO.3666/M/201 7 A.Y. 2011-12 WHEREIN THE ANNUAL VALUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AT RS.4,86,834/- AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLO TTED IN THE CURRENT YEAR ALSO AS THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE R EMAINED VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADO PTED MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT AS REFERRED TO THE LD. A.R. (SUPRA) BY SUBMITT ING THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE LAST YEAR I.E. PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 2011-12 WAS RS.4,86,834/- AND SAME NEEDS TO BE ENHANCED BY 5% AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE YEAR 2011-12 AND THEREFORE THE ALV AT RS.5,10,016/- SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, WE OBSERV E THAT THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO DETERMINED THE ALV FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 201 1-12 AT RS.4,86,834/- WHICH WAS ARRIVED AT BY 5% TO THE ALV OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS RS.4,63,651/- A ND THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISM ISSED. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT RATEAB LE VALUE WAS OFFERED BY ASSESSEE AT RS.3,86,376/- IN RESPECT OF PREMISES SI TUATED AT CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI. THE SAID PREMISES WER E VACANT THROUGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ALV SO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND RECOMPUTED ALV AT RS.68,36,502/-. THE ITA NO.3666/MUM/2017 & 3845/MUM /2017 SHRI VIRENDRA JAIN ITA NO.3886/M/2017 M/S. VIRENDRAKUMAR JAIN 3 CIT(A) CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS I NCLUDING THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY 368 ITR 330 AND ALSO DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF OTHER FAMILY ME MBERS OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT ALV AS PER THE RATEABLE VALUE FIXED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AT RS.4,63,651/-. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS AS DISCUSSED BY CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND AFTER APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AL V OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD BE AS PER THE RATEABLE VALUE FIXED BY MUNICIPAL AUT HORITY. I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSID ERING THE FACT THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR 2010-11, THE ALV HAS BEE N DETERMINED AT RS.4,63,651/-, ENHANCED THE SAME BY 5% AND WORKED O UT TO RS.4,86,834/-. THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY CIT(A) IS AS PER MATERI AL ON RECORD, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. 6. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME PRINC IPLE AS LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR, WE ARE INCLIN ED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE A LV HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY 5% TO THE PREVIOUS ALV IN A.Y. 2011-12 . 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2018. SD/- SD/- (AMARJEET SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31.10.2018. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.