LAXMI JAIN, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

ITA 3914/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6029 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 3914/MUM/17 2011 - 12 SMT. LAXMI JAIN, 82, MAKER CHAMBERS - III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI [PAN: AABPJ 1889 R] THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(4), MUMBAI 3915/MUM/17 2012 - 13 3669/MUM/17 2011 - 12 DCIT, CC - 6(4), MUMBAI SMT. LAXMI SATYAPAL JAIN, 82, MAKER CHAMBERS - III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI [PAN: AABPJ 1889 R] 3670/MUM/17 2012 - 13 APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANUJKISNADWALA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 12 - 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : - 31 - 12 - 201 8 O R D E R PER BENCH : TH E S E APPEAL S ARE FILED BY BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD TOGETHER AND DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS. 3914 & 3915/MUM/17 3669 & 3670/MUM/17 : 2 : 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONFIRM ATION OF THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF THE FLAT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI AT RS. 10,63,501/ - INSTEAD OF RS. 8,44,048/ - OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE , BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE FOR THE AY . 2011 - 12. 2.1. SIMILARLY IN AY. 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF ALV AT RS. 11,14,144/ - INSTEAD OF RS. 8,91,541/ - OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. 3. WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ORDER S OF CIT(A), WHEREBY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS HELD THAT THE RATABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE TAKEN WHILE DETERMINING THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREBY RESTRICTING THE ALV TO RS. 10,63,501/ - AS AGAINST T HE AO OF RS. 1,61,57,124/ - IN AT 2011 - 12 AND RS. 14,14,144/ - AS AGAINST THE AO OF RS. 1,77,72,836/ - IN AT 2012 - 13 . 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT, FOR THE AY. 2011 - 12 , ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF FLAT S AT CENTRAL GARD EN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI , MUMBAI, WHICH WAS LYING VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE FLAT AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE WAS AT ITA NOS. 3914 & 3915/MUM/17 3669 & 3670/MUM/17 : 3 : RS. 9,37,831/ - . THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY AND EXPLAIN THE ANNUAL VA LUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT S , WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING THAT ANNUAL RATABLE VALUE HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE AS THE FL A TS WERE VACANT THROUGHOUT , FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION S OF ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AO , WHO DETERMINED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS. 1,61,57,124/ - AND FINALLY ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AT RS. 89, 98,897/ - BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. CIT(A) AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP T OP TYPOGRAPHY [368 ITR 330], DETERMINED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE AT RS. 10,63,501/ - , WHICH WAS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL VALUE OF FLATS FOR THE AY. 2010 - 11 AS INCREASED BY 5%. THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL B EFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NOS. 3914 & 3915/MUM/17 3669 & 3670/MUM/17 : 4 : 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2118 /MUM/2012 (AY. 2009 - 10), DT. 26 - 11 - 2014, DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BASED UPON THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO S . 4726 & 4831/MUM/2014 (AY. 2010 - 11), DT. 04 - 02 - 2016 AND ANOTHER DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NOS. 3666 & 3845/MUM/2017, IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIRENDRA JAIN (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE , ), DT. 14 - 11 - 2017 , WHEREIN ALSO, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE SAME LINES. 7. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. WE FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AVAILABLE THA T THE ISSUE I N HAND IS SQUARELY COVERED SETTLED WHERE IN IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE AND NOT ON THE MARKET VALUE. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE OWNED FLAT S AT CENTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI , WHICH W ERE VACANT DUR ING THE YEAR AND ITA NOS. 3914 & 3915/MUM/17 3669 & 3670/MUM/17 : 5 : ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX THE ALV AT RS. 8,4 4,048/ - . WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH AND T HE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTL Y 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 APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE BINDING NATURE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SMITABEN N AMBANI (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 ANY CASE, THE PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES IS NO BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE ALV OF THE PR OPERTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . 8.1. THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE MATERIALLY SAME , AS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ABOVE DECISION . HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHO DIRECTED THE AO TO TAKE THE ALV AT MRV OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR PLUS 5% AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME . APPEALS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE DISMISSED. 8.2. SIMILARLY , THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE AY. 2012 - 13 ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITA NOS. 3914 & 3915/MUM/17 3669 & 3670/MUM/17 : 6 : CO - ORDINATE BENCH , WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR THE AY. 2012 - 13 ALSO BY DISMISSING THE GROUNDS OF BOTH THE PARTIES . 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 SD/ - SD/ - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI; / DATED : 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018 TNMM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI 4. / CIT, MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE ITA NOS. 3914 & 3915/MUM/17 3669 & 3670/MUM/17 : 7 : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI