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

ITA 446/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6724 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV GUBGOTRADR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT SHETTYAR

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F, MUMBAI , .., , ! BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.446/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 VIRENDRA JAIN, 82, MAKER CHAMBERS III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 / VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI-400021 ( $%& ' /ASSESSEE) ( ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AABPJ1882E $%& ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI AMIT SHETTY-AR ( / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJIV GUBGOTRA-DR ) (*+' , / DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2019 +' , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/01/2019 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/09/2017 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, ITA NO.446/MUM/2018 VIRENDRA JAIN 2 MUMBAI, CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (HEREIN AFTER ALV) OF THE PREMISES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT CENTR AL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI AT RS.5,95,019/ - INSTEAD OF RS.4,29,307/-, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE B ASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PREMISES IN QUE STION. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, SHRI RAJIV GUBGOTRA , POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESS EE ITSELF, VIDE ORDER DATED 31/10/2018 (ITA NO.3886/MUM/2017) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE, SHRI AMIT SHETTY. 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 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31/10/2018 FOR R EADY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- 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 ITA NO.446/MUM/2018 VIRENDRA JAIN 3 RS.5,10,016/- OF THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT CE NTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI AS MADE BY THE AO AS AGAINST RS.3,86,376/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BA SED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. 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 /2017 A.Y. 2011-12 WHEREIN THE ANNUAL VALUE HAS BEEN ACCE PTED 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 Y EAR I.E. 2011-12 WAS RS.4,86,834/- AND SAME NEEDS TO BE ENHA NCED BY 5% AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE YEAR 2011-12 AND THER EFORE 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 COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO DETERMINED THE ALV FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 20 11-12 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 FOU ND FROM RECORD THAT RATEABLE VALUE WAS OFFERED BY ASSESSEE AT RS.3,86,376/- IN RESPECT OF PREMISES SITUATED AT CE NTRAL GARDEN COMPLEX, CHUNABHATTI, MUMBAI. THE SAID PREMI SES WERE VACANT THROUGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ALV S O OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED ON THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND RECOMPU TED ITA NO.446/MUM/2018 VIRENDRA JAIN 4 ALV AT RS.68,36,502/-. THE ITA NO.3666/MUM/2017 & 3845/MUM/2017 SHRI VIRENDRA JAIN CIT(A) CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY 368 IT R 330 AND ALSO DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF O THER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT AL V 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 CI T(A) IN HIS ORDER AND AFTER APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALV OF THE HOUSE PRO PERTY SHOULD BE AS PER THE RATEABLE VALUE FIXED BY MUNICI PAL AUTHORITY. I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR 2010-11, THE ALV HAS BEEN 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 MATERIAL ON RECORD, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY I NTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. 6. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME PRINC IPLE AS LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR, WE ARE INCLINE D TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AL V 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. 2.2. WE FIND THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE TRIBUNAL DELIBERATED UPON THE SAME PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE/ON IDENTICAL ISSUE AND THEREAFTER REACHED TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE TR IBUNAL DULY CONSIDERED THE ALV FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 -12 WHICH WAS ARRIVED AT BY 5% OF THE ALV OF THE PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. NEITHER THE CONTRARY FACTS WERE BR OUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER SIDE AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO O UR ITA NO.446/MUM/2018 VIRENDRA JAIN 5 NOTICE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 22/01/2019. SD/- (N.K. PRADHAN) SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%& / VICE PRESIDENT ! ) * MUMBAI; 1 DATED : 22/01/2019 F{X~{T? P.S/. $.. , !'()*+,+-) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 234 / THE APPELLANT 2. 534 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) 7' , ( 2 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) 7' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 9(:$'$ , 2,2 / , ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;% / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ) / ITAT, MUMBAI