ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN V. JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA, KALYAN

ITA 4572/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9881 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU GARODIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHICA

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -JBENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C. N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./4572/MUM/2015, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ACIT-CIRCLE-3 SECOND FLOOR, RANI MANSION, MURBAD ROAD KALYAN-(W)-421 301. VS. SHRI JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA 1ST FLOOR, RANI MANSION, MURBAD ROAD KALYAN-(WEST). PAN:AAAPZ 5650 K ( /APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY: MS. ARJU GARODIA- DR /ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SUBODH RATNAPARKHI-CA / DATE OF HEARING: 13/07/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/09/2017 , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 22/05/2015 OF THE CIT( A)- I,THANE,THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.THE ASSESSEE FILED IT S ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/09/201, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.91.68 LAKHS.THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY,THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 06 /02/2014 ,U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,DETER- MINING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2.37 CRORES. 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TREATING INCOME OF RS.4.51 LAKHS FROM MOBILE TOWER COMPANY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY,A S AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THE RENTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED RENT OF RS.4,51,000/- RECEIVED FROM MOBILE TOWER COMPANIES,THAT HE OFFERED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.AF TER SEEKING AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD,THE AO HELD THAT INCOME HA D TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF 30% CLAIMED U/S. 24(A) OF THE ACT.HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1.35 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA) THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND RELIED UPON THE CASE OF MANPREET SINGH OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL (ITA/3976/DEL/2013, DT.6/1/2015) .AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, HE HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BAJAJ BHAVAN OWNERS PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT RENT RECEIVED FROM MOBILE TOWERS HAD TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THAT IN THE CONTRACT THERE WAS NO O BLIGATION ON PART OF THE OWNER WITH REGARD TO REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TERRACE, THAT ON TERRACE THERE WERE NO ROOMS/STRUCTURE, THAT 4572/M/15 JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA 2 ONLY A PORTION OF TERRACE HAD BEEN RENTED OUT,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF 30%.FINALLY HE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 2.2. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)STATE D THAT THE MATTER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS.THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND RELIED UPON THE CASE OF MATRU ASHISH CO-OP HSG.SOC. LTD. ( ITA/316/MUM/2010, DT.27.8.2008). WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT.RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WE DECIDE THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE A O. 3. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1.29 LAKHS.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT A SUM OF R S.1.85 LAKHS WAS CREDITED AS RENT TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. SAB REALITY.NOT FINDING THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF RENT,BEING PART OF COMPUTATION O F INCOME,HE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE RENTAL INCOME OFFER ED TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,29,630/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE, AFTER GRANTING DEDUCTION OF 30% U/S. 24(A) OF THE ACT. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION BEFORE THE F AA WHO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN HIS PERSONAL CA PACITY AS WELL AS OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN I.E. M/S. SAB REALITY, THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUNT WAS RECE IVED BY HIM FROM TATA TELE SERVICES,THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BY THE PROPRIETARY CONCE RN,THAT CHEQUE FROM THE LICENSEE WAS RECEIVED IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAB REALITY, THAT THE AMOUNT WAS FIRST CREDITED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE PROPRIETARY CO NCERN, THAT LATER ON SAME WAS TAKEN TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN HIS PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT S, THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE ACCOUNTING CONCEPT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY OFFERED THE RENT OF RS.1.85 LAKHS AS PART OF THE MOBILE TOWER RENT.FINALLY, HE DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO. 3.2. THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENC H AND THE AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL INCOME FROM MOBILE TOWERS OF RS.4.51 LAKHS, THAT IT INCLUDED THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF RS.1.85 LA KHS.IF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION,THEN THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATIO N FOR TAXING IT AGAIN.WE AGREE WITH THE FAA THAT AO HAD NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONFIRMING THE HIS ORDER,WE DECIDE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. 4572/M/15 JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA 3 4. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.97.46 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS ,THE AO EXAMINED DETAILS OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES RENTED OUT ON LEASE AND LICENSE BASIS.HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE EXPLANATION ABOUT REASONABLENESS OF THE RENTAL INCO ME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE,THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE RENT PER SQ.F T. VARIED BETWEEN RS.19.50 PER MONTH TO RS.238/- PER MONTH, HAT ALL THE PROPERTIES WERE SIT UATED IN ONE MUNICIPAL WARD OF KALYAN, THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR VARIATI ON IN RATES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO APPLIED THE MAXIMUM RENT OF RS.238/-PER SQ.FT. TO THE TOTAL ARE A OF ALL PREMISES (6617 SQ.FT.), THEREBY WORKING OUT TOTAL RENT OF RS.1.88 CRORES. AFTER ALL OWING DEDUCTION U/S.24(A) OF THE ACT, THE AO WORKED OUT THE TAXABLE RENT AT RS.1.32 CRORES,RE SULTING IN AN ADDITION OF RS.97.46 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 4.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE OBJECTE D TO THE ADDITION AND FILED A DETAILED EXPLANATION.AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIA L,INCLUDING THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREE- MENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE,THE FAA HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING SEVERAL IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN KALYAN, THAT EACH OF THE PR OPERTY WAS LOCATED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, THAT IT WAS LEASED OUT TO THIRD PARTIES.REFERRING T O THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION23(I)(A) OF THE ACT, HE HELD THAT THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE LOCATED AT DIFFERENT PLACES AND HAD DIFFERENT SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS,THAT THEY HAD TH EIR INDIVIDUAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PUTTING ALL THE PR OPERTIES IN ONE BASKET AND MULTIPLYING TOTAL AREA OF THE PROPERTIES WITH THE HIGHEST RENT ,THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE RENTAL INCOME THE AO HAD CLUBBED TOGETHER OLD AND NEW PROPERTIES, GROUND FLOOR AND BASEMENT PREMISES, THAT THE MAXIMUM AREA OF ANY PROPERTY WAS THE BASEMENT PREMI SES (2600 SQ.FT.) THAT WAS ACQUIRED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R S.10.50 LAKHS, THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS RENTED OUT FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.50,700/-, THAT THE AO HAD SUBSTITUTED THE RENT OF THIS PROPERTY AT RS.74.25 LAKHS, THAT AS AGAINST THE ACT UAL RENT OF RS.50,700/- PER MONTH THE AO ADOPTED A SUM OF RS.6.18 LAKHS PER MONTH AS ALV,THA T THE RENT OF RS.238/-PER SQ.FT WAS RECEIVED ONLY IN RESPECT OF SHOPS SITUATED IN THE H EART OF COMMERCIAL AREA OF KALYAN, THAT THE SHOPS WERE RENTED OUT TO REPUTED JEWELERS, THAT EAC H PROPERTY HAD DISTINCT FEATURES, THAT NONE OF THE FIVE PROPERTIES WERE COMPARABLE TO EACH OTHE R, THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE RENT, THAT NONE OF THE TENANTS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO, T HAT THE AO HAD NOT REFERRED TO ANY COMPARABLE INSTANCE TO SHOW THAT THE RENT OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT.FINALLY HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 4572/M/15 JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA 4 4.2. BEFORE US,THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE RENTED OUT TO THIRD PARTIES,THAT TENANTS WERE NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT AO HAD WRONGLY TAKEN THE HIGHEST RENT IGNORING THE FACT TH AT SHOPS WERE IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA, THAT THE SHOPS COULD NOT BE BENCH MARKED FOR DETERMINING THE ALV OF OTHER PROPERTIES. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REGISTERED LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREE MENT (PG.-35-115 OF THE PB) .WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE OWNED SEVERAL PROPERTIES, RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL IN KALYAN, THAT THE AO HAD ESTIMATED THE ALV OF ALL THE PROPERTIES BY ADOP TING THE HIGHEST RENT(RS.238/-PER SQ.FT.), THAT NO COMPARABLE INSTANCE OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN SAME BUILDING /AREA AND HAVING HIGHER RENT THAN THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BR OUGHT ON RECORD.IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUBSTANTIA LLY HIGHER THAN THE RATEABLE VALUE AS PER THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. KALYAN-DOMBIVILI MUNICIPAL COR PORATION (KDMC).THE AO HAD NOT ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT O VER AND ABOVE THE RENT RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE OF THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT.WE WIL L LIKE TO REFER TO THE CASE OF TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (368ITR330) AND AKSHAY TEXTILES AND TRAD ING AGENCIES (P.) LTD. (304ITR401) OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT.IN THE FIR ST MATTER,THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY COMPUTING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ANNUAL VALUE FIRSTLY TO BE THE SUM FO R WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IN THE EVENT, THE PROPERTY WHICH CONSISTS OF ANY BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO, IF THE ACTUAL RENT RE CEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAU SE (A), IT IS THAT AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE ANNUAL V ALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. TH E PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE ARE : (I) THE ANNUAL LETTI NG VALUE WOULD BE THE SUM AT WHICH THE PROPERTY MAY BE REASONABLY LET OUT BY A WILLING LES SOR TO A WILLING LESSEE UNINFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES ; (II) AN INFLATED OR DEFL ATED RENT BASED ON EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS MAY TAKE IT OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF REA SONABLENESS ; (III) THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED, IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD BE A RELIABLE EVIDEN CE UNLESS THE RENT IS INFLATED OR DEFLATED BY REASON OF EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS ; (IV) SUCH ANNUAL LETTING VALUE, HOWEVER, CANNOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT AS PER THE RENT CONTROL LE GISLATION APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY ; (V) IF THE STANDARD RENT HAS NOT BEEN FIXED BY THE RENT CO NTROLLER, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE STANDARD RENT AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF RENT CONTROL ENACTMENT ; (VI) THE STANDARD RENT IS THE UPPER LIMIT, AND IF THE FA IR RENT IS LESS THAN THE STANDARD RENT, THEN IT IS THE FAIR RENT WHICH SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL LE TTING VALUE AND NOT THE STANDARD RENT. IT IS A WELL-RECOGNISED PRINCIPLE IN RATING THAT BOTH GROSS VALUE AND NET ANNUAL VALUE ARE ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO THE RENT AT WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGH T REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. VARIOUS METHODS OF VALUATION ARE APPL IED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT SUCH HYPOTHETICAL RENT, FOR INSTANCE, BY REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL RENT PAID FOR THE PROPERTY OR FOR OTHER COMPARABLE TO IT OR WHERE THERE ARE NO RENTS BY REF ERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENTS OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES OR TO THE PROFITS CARRIED FROM THE PROPE RTY OR TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. CONSIDERING THE DIFFICULTIES FACED IN EITHER RETRIE VING IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN METRO CITIES AND TOWNS, AND THE TIME SPENT IN LITIGATION, IT IS EXPEDIENT TO EXECUTE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENTS. THESE ARE USUALLY FOR FIXED PERIODS AND RENEWABLE. IN SUCH CASES AS WELL, THE 4572/M/15 JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA 5 CONCEDED POSITION IS THAT THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED ON THE SAME BASIS AS NOTED ABOVE. IN THE EVENT A SECURITY DEPOS IT 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, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PREVENTED FROM CARRYING OUT NECESSARY INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. HE MUST HAVE COGENT AND SATISFACTORY MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION 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 ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE, WOULD BE FOR ASCERTAINING THE GOING RATE. HE CAN MAKE A COMPARATIVE STUDY AND AN ANALYSIS. IN THAT REGARD, TRANSACTIONS OF IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR NATURE CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY O BTAINING THE REQUISITE DETAILS. HOWEVER, THERE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST SAFEGUARD AGA INST ADOPTING THE RATES STATED THEREIN STRAIGHTAWAY. HE MUST FIND OUT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT OR GIVEN ON LEAVE AND LICENCE BASIS IS OF A SIMILAR NATURE, NAMELY, C OMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. HE SHOULD ALSO SATISFY HIMSELF WHETHER THE RATE OBTAINED BY HIM FR OM THE DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS IN RELATION THERETO CAN BE APPLIED OR WHE THER A DEPARTURE THEREFROM CAN BE MADE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINES THE RATE BY THE ABOVE EXERCISE 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 ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BARGAIN REVEALS A N INFLATED OR DEFLATED RATE BASED ON FRAUD, EMERGENCY, RELATIONSHIP AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MA KES IT UNREASONABLE MUST PRECEDE THE UNDERTAKING OF THE ABOVE EXERCISE. IN THE CASE OF AKSHEY TEXTILES(SUPRA),THE HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, USES THE EXPRESSION THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FRO M YEAR TO YEAR. THIS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPLICABLE RENT LAWS. THE COU RTS HAVE CONSTRUED THE RENT RECEIVABLE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE EITHER THE STANDARD RENT O R THE RATEABLE VALUE AS FIXED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT ABOUT TO SE CTION 23 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2002, EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED HIGHER RENT THAN THE STANDARD RENT, THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF T AX. TO OVERCOME THIS OMISSION THE SECTION WAS SUBSTITUTED TO COVER ALSO THOSE CASES WHERE REN T RECEIVED WAS HIGHER THAN THE STANDARD RENT OR RENT BASED ON MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE A WIDER MEANING THAN IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 23(1)(A) . THE LEGISLATURE HAS SUBSTITUTED THE PROVISION AND BROUGHT IN SECTION 23(1)(B) TO COVER THE PART OF THE ANNUAL VA LUE WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE TAX AMBIT BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT. IN THAT CONTEXT , THE EXPRESSION RECEIVABLE WOULD MEAN THAT THOUGH THE ANNUAL VALUE IS FIXED IN TERMS OF T HE AGREEMENT EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT RECEIVED IN THE RELEVANT YEAR, YET THE SAME WOULD BE ASSESSA BLE TO TAX. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY.THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WITHOUT ANY BAS IS AND IGNORING THE PRINCIPLES ENUMERA - TED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE M ENTIONED TWO CASES. CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF FAA WE DECIDE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINS T THE AO. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY AO STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. 06 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( . . / C.N.PRASAD ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 06 .09.2017. JV.SR.PS. 4572/M/15 JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.