SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT - 14 (3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5081/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VINOD KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5081/MUM/2018 (ASST. YEAR : 2013-14) M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD. , PLOT NO. 219, LAALASIS, 11 TH ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI. VS. D CIT, CIRCLE - 14(3)(2), MUMBAI PAN NO. AAACS 7073 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.P. BAIRAGRA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V. VINOD KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 05/12/2019. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/12/2019 . O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-22, MUMBAI, DA TED 21/06/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APP EAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTION OF THE AO BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN COMPUTING THE ALV OF THE OFFICE PREMISES AT BALAJI BHAVAN AT RS.99,21,226/- WHEN THE PREMISES WERE AS LYING VACA NT. 2 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 3 . FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN HOUSE PROPERTIES OF RS. 3,43,36 ,083/-, WHICH WERE NOT CATEGORIZED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. ACCORDINGL Y, A SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED, WHICH WAS REPL IED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING THAT IMPUGNED PROPERTIES WER E LYING VACANT FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR AS THE TENANT-M/S. STERL ING CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM PVT. LTD. HAS LEFT THE PREMISES AND NO RENT WHATSOEVER WAS RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED BEFORE T HE AO THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ANNUAL VALUE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS NIL A S IT WAS VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AO AND HE CALCULATED THE DEEMED RENT OF RS .90,19,296/- AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.CIT(A) DISMIS SED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT IN RESPECT OF EARLIER YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 THE SAME ISSUE WA S DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIVEK JAIN VS. ACIT [(2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP)]. 3 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT IS SUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2892/MUM/2016 AND IT A NO. 66/MUM/2017 FOR THE A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 BY ORDE R DATED 19/09/2018 WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. A.YS. 2 011-12 & 2012-13 THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. 7 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE UNDER IDENTICAL F ACTS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE R EVENUE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN REPROD UCED AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT OUR INDU LGENCE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN SOUGHT FOR ADJUDICATING AS TO WHETHER THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSE E VIZ. UNIT NO. 401 & 425 OF PROJECT BALAJI BHAVAN, HAD RIGHTLY BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SE C. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS. NIL, OR THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED U/S 23(1)(A) AS HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE AGR EEMENT DATED APRIL, 2007 LET OUT THE UNIT NO. 401 & 425 OF PROJE CT BALAJI BHAVAN 4 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 TO M/S STERLING CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. FOR A PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS, AND HAD OFFERED THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED THEREFRO M AS ITS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE PRECEDING YEARS , BUT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LICENSE PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS THE L ICENSEE HAD VACATED THE PROPERTY AND CONVEYED ITS INTENTION OF NOT GETTING THE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWED ANY FURTHER. WE FURTHER F IND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS BEFORE US THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS VACATED, THE SAME THEREAFTER HAD REMAINED UNDER THE SELF OCCUPATION O F THE ASSESSEE. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITIO N IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AG REEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE RAIS ED BEFORE US IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIZ. (I). VIKAS KESHAV GARU D VS. ITO, WARD 1(2), NASHIK (2016) 160 ITD 7 (PUNE) (II). ACIT, CI RCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI VS. DR. PRABHA SANGHI (2012) 139 ITD 504 (DEL); (III). PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 10, MUMBAI (2008) 110 ITD 158 (MUM); AND (IV). INFORMED TECHNO LOGIES INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT3(2), MUMBAI (2017) 162 ITD 153 (MUM). WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES INDI A LTD. (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL AFTER DELIBERATING AT LENGTH ON THE IS SUE AS REGARDS THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HA D OBSERVED AS UNDER : 7.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF EI THER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUD ING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US IS AS TO W HETHER THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DARS HAN APARMENTS, MALABAR HILLS, MUMBAI, HAD RIGHTLY BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SE C. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, OR THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED U/S 23(1)(A) AS SO HELD BY THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. WE FIND THAT IT IS MATTER OF UNDISPUTED FACT THAT T HE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED LET OUT UPTO 04.12.2008, A ND THEREAFTER THE SAME REMAINED VACANT. WE FURTHER FIN D FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS BEFORE US THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS VACATED AS ON 04.12.2008, THE SAME THEREAFTER REMAINED UNDER THE SELF OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT IN LIGHT OF THE AF ORESAID FACTUAL POSITION IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSE E, WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US FOR ADJUDI CATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF : PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P) LTD. VS. 5 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 ACIT (2008) 110 ITD 158 (MUM), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD THEREIN HELD : IF THE PROPERTY IS HELD BY THE OWNER FOR LETTING O UT AND EFFORTS WERE MADE TO LET IT OUT , THAT PROPERTY IS COVERED BY THIS CLAUSE AND THIS REQUIREMENT HAS TO BE SATISFIED IN EACH YEAR THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING HELD TO LET OUT BUT REMAINED VACANT FOR WHOLE OR PART OF THE YEAR. WE FEEL THAT THE WORDS PROPERTY IS LET ARE USED IN THIS CLAUSE TO TAKE OUT THOSE PROPERTIES FROM TH E AMBIT OF THE CLAUSE IN WHICH PROPERTIES ARE HELD BY THE OWNER FOR SELFOCCUPATION I.E SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY (I.E SOP) BECAUSE EVEN INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SOP, EXCLUDING ONE SUCH SOP OF WHICH ANNUAL VALUE IS TO BE ADOPTED AT NIL, IS ALSO TO BE COMPUTED UNDER THIS H EAD AS PER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 23(1) IF WE SEE THE COMBINED READING OF SUB-SECTION (2) AND (4) OF SECTION 23. ONE THING IS MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE FIND THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATURE HAVE CONSIDERED THA T ACTUAL LETTING OUT IS REQUIRED, THEY HAVE USED THE WORDS HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET. THIS CAN BE SEEN IN SUB- SECTION (3) OF SAME SECTION 23. BUT IN CLAUSE (C) ABOVE, ACTUALLY LET WORDS ARE NOT USED AND THIS A LSO SHOWS THAT MEANING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS PROPERTY IS LET CANNOT BE PROPERTY ACTUALLY LET OUT. IN OUR OPINION, IT TALKS OF PROPERTIES WHICH ARE HE LD TO LETTING OUT HAVING INTENTION TO LET OUT IN THE RELE VANT YEAR COUPLED WITH EFFORTS MADE FOR LETTING IT OUT. IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, IT HAS TO BE HELD T HAT PROPERTY IS LET AND THE SAME WILL FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS CLAUSE. WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AFORE SAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L, WHICH ANALYZING THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SEC. 23(1)(C) OF T HE ACT, HAD THEREIN CONCLUDED THAT IN LIGHT OF THE W ORDS PROPERTY IS LET USED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SEC. 23(1) OF THE ACT, UNLIKE THE TERM HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET AS S TANDS GATHERED FROM A CONJOINT READING OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO (4) OF SEC. 23, IT CAN SAFELY AND INESCAPABLY BE GATHERED THAT THE CONSCIOUS, PURPOSIVE AND INTENTIONAL USAGE OF THE A FORESAID TERM PROPERTY IS LET IN SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT , CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE TERM HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET AS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL ITS WISDOM IN SUB-SECTION (3 ) OF SEC. 23. THUS IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE REQUIR EMENT HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET DURING THE YEAR IS NOT A PR EREQUISITE FOR BRINGING THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SWE EP OF 6 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS LET IN THE EARLIER PERIOD AND IS FOUND VACANT FOR THE WHOL E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT SUCH VACANCY OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT FOR SELF OCCUPATION OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO CONTINUES TO HOLD THE SAI D PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LETTING OUT. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH THAT THE USAGE OF THE TERM PROPERTY IS LET IN SEC. 23( 1)(C) HAD PURPOSIVELY BEEN USED TO EXCLUDE THOSE PROPERTIES F ROM THE AMBIT OF THE CLAUSE WHICH ARE HELD BY THE OWNER FOR SELF OCCUPATION PURPOSES, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE ALV OF ONESELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY SO CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN AT NIL, HOWEVER THE ALV OF ALL THE REMAININ G SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN TERMS O F SEC. 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THUS TO OUR UNDERSTANDING TH E TERM PROPERTY IS LET USED IN SEC. 23(1)(C) IS SOLELY W ITH THE INTENT TO AVOID MISUSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE ALV OF SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES BY THE ASSESSES BY TAKING RECOU RSE TO SEC. 23(1)(C), HOWEVER THE SAME CANNOT BE STRETCHED BEYOND THAT AND THE ALV OF A PROPERTY WHICH IS LE T, BUT THEREAFTER REMAINS VACANT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THOUGH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE SAME IS NOT PUT UNDER SELF OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D IS HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF LETTING OUT OF THE SAME, WOULD C ONTINUE TO BE DETERMINED U/S 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS IN LI GHT OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL AND THE REASONINGS FLOWING THERE FROM, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD RIGH TLY DETERMINED THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. NIL BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REG ARD WE ARE FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAD MISCONCEIVE D THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES H IN THE CASE OF VIKAS JAIN (SUPRA), AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID JUDGMENT THEREIN FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT I N THE CONCLUDING PARA 14 & 15 HAD THOUGH CONCLUDED THAT T HE BENEFIT OF COMPUTING THE ALV U/S 23(1)(C) COULD N OT BE EXTENDED TO A CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LET O UT AT ALL, WOULD HOWEVER DULY ENCOMPASS AND TAKE WITHIN I TS SWEEP CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY HAD REMAINED LET OUT FOR TWO OR MORE YEARS, BUT HAD REMAINED VACANT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NOW WHEN IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE THE PROPER TY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD REMAINED LET OUT UPTO 04.12 .2008, AND THEREAFTER THOUGH COULD NOT BE LET OUT AND HAD REMAINED VACANT DURING WHOLE OF THE YEAR UNDER 7 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 CONSIDERATION, BUT ALSO HAD NEVER REMAINED UNDER TH E SELF OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COMPUTATION OF THE ALV U/S 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HAD RIGHTLY BEEN CARRIED OUT IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 7.2 THAT IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE ADD ITION OF RS. 8,40,000/- MADE BY THE A.O AND AS SUCH SUSTAINE D BY THE CIT(A) IS HEREIN VACATED. WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AFORE SAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L, WHICH WE FIND, HAD WHILE ANALYZING THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF SE C. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, CONCLUDED THAT IN LIGHT OF THE WORDS PR OPERTY IS LET USED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SEC. 23(1) OF THE ACT, UNLI KE THE TERM HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET AS STANDS GATHERED FROM A C ONJOINT READING OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO (4) OF SEC. 23, IT CAN SAFELY AND RATHER INESCAPABLY BE GATHERED THAT THE CONSCIOUS, PURPOSI VE AND INTENTIONAL USAGE OF THE AFORESAID TERM PROPERTY I S LET IN SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE TERM HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET AS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL ITS WISDOM IN SUB- SECTION (3) OF SEC. 23. THUS, IT CAN SAFELY BE CONC LUDED THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET DURING THE YEAR IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A PREREQUISITE FOR BRINGING THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SWEEP OF SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS LET IN THE EARLIER PERIOD AND IS FOUND VACANT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SUBJECT TO THE COND ITION THAT SUCH VACANCY OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT FOR SELF OCCUPATION OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE WHO CONTINUES TO HOLD THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LETTING OUT. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH THAT THE USAGE OF THE TERM PROPERTY IS LET IN SEC. 23(1)(C) HAD PURPOSIVELY BEEN USED TO EXCLUDE THOSE PROPERTIES FROM THE AMBIT OF THE CLAUSE WHICH ARE H ELD BY THE OWNER FOR SELF OCCUPATION PURPOSES, BECAUSE EVEN TH OUGH THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ONESELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY SO CHOS EN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN AT NIL, HOWEVER THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ALL THE REMAINING SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES ARE TO BE DETERM INED IN TERMS OF SEC. 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THUS, TO OUR UNDERST ANDING, THOUGH THE TERM PROPERTY IS LET USED IN SEC. 23(1)(C) IS SOLELY WITH THE INTENT TO AVOID MISUSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE ANN UAL VALUE OF SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES BY THE ASSESSES BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 23(1)(C), HOWEVER, THE SAME CANNOT BE STRETCHE D BEYOND THAT AND THE ANNUAL VALUE OF A PROPERTY WHICH IS LET, BUT THEREAFTER REMAINS VACANT FURTHER WHOLE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THOUGH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE SAME IS NO T PUT UNDER SELF OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF 8 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 LETTING OUT OF THE SAME, WOULD CONTINUE TO BE DETER MINED U/S 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, IN LIGHT OF THE AFORES AID ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE REASONINGS FLOWING THERE FROM, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD RIGHTLY DETERMINED THE ANNUAL VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY AT NIL BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. WE MAY FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD MISCO NCEIVED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES H IN THE CASE OF VIVEK JAIN VS. ACIT (2011) 337 ITR 74 (AP). WE F IND THAT IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CONCLUD ING PARA 14 & 15 HAD OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE BENEFIT OF COMPUTIN G THE ALV U/S 23(1)(C) COULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO A CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LET OUT AT ALL, HOWEVER THE SAME WOULD DULY ENCOMPASS AND TAKE WITHIN ITS SWEEP CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY HAD REMAINED LET OUT FOR TWO OR MORE YEARS, BUT HAD REMAINED VAC ANT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT NOW WHEN IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE T HE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD REMAINED LET OUT FOR A PERI OD OF 36 MONTHS, AND THEREAFTER THOUGH COULD NOT BE LET OUT AND HAD REMAINED VACANT DURING WHOLE OF THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, BUT HAD NEVER REMAINED UNDER THE SELF OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, NO INFIRMITY EMERGES FROM THE COMPU TATION OF THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY UNDER SEC. 23(1 )(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THAT IN LIGHT OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THE DET ERMINATION OF THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERAT ION VIZ. UNIT NO. 401 & 425 OF PROJECT BALAJI BHAVAN AT RS. 81,99 ,360/- BY THE A.O BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SEC. 23(1)(A), WHICH THER EAFTER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), IS VACATED. THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . SINCE THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO ONES AS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 19/09/2018 AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE THER EFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE 9 ITA NO.5081/MUM/2018 (M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.) ITA NO. 402/MUM/2015 ADDITION RESULTING FROM ESTIMATION OF DEEMED ANNUAL LETTING VALUE IN RESPECT OF VACANT PROPERTIES. THUS, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2019 SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 6 TH DECEMBER, 2019. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE M/S. SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 219, LAALASIS, 11TH ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI. 2. THE REVENUE DCIT, CIRCLE-14(3)(2), MUMBAI 3. THE PR.CIT-14, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-22, MUMBAI. 5. THE D.R., MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI