M/s Fateh Homes Private Limited, Chandigarh V. ITO Ward-1(4), Chandigarh

ITA 53/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3583 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report; Notional interest; Set aside; CHAPTER IV

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.53 /CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S FATEH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, H.NO.2144, SECTOR 15-C, CHANDIGARH. THE I.T.O., WARD-1(4), CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AABCF0763F /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2021 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.10.2021 (HEARING THROUGH WEBEX) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH [(IN SHORT THE LD.CIT(A )] DATED 31.10.2019 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, PAS SED U/S ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 12 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS ACT). 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE, IT TRANSPIRES, IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL RELATES TO THE INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS IS TO BE ASSESSED BASIS ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED WHILE THE REVEN UE CONTENDS THE SAME TO BE ASSESSABLE AT FAIR MARKET R ENT DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF A GOVT. APP ROVED VALUER 3. THE ISSUE RELATES TO HOUSE PROPERTY BEARING NO . 59, AT PLOT NO.55. SECTOR-4, CHANDIGARH, RENTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONE MRS.HARKESH KAUR. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.6,50,000/- AND AFTER CLAIMING EXPEN SES, RETURNED INCOME OF RS.4,09,830/- THE ASSESSING OFF ICER (AO) HAD ACCEPTED THAT PART OF THE HOUSE WAS LET OU T TO THE LESSEE, BUT TREATED THE FAIR MARKET RENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT RS.3,00,000/- PER MONTH ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF T HE APPROVED GOVERNMENT VALUER, NAMELY M/S CONTINENTAL FOUNDATIONS, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DDI T (INV), CHANDIGARH ALONGWITH REPORT OF THE PUNJAB VI GILANCE ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 12 BUREAU. THE SAME WAS DULY CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AS SESSEE, IN RESPONSE, STATED THAT THE RENT RECEIVED BY HIM W AS REASONABLE AND SUBMITTED COPY OF LEASE DEED FOR HOU SE NO.330, SECTOR 9-D, CHANDIGARH WHERE THE COMPLETE H OUSE WAS LEASED OUT @RS 80,000/- P.M. AND COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE & BANK STATEMENT FROM TENANT OF HOUSE N O.114, SECTOR 8-A, CHANDIGARH WHERE THE COMPLETE HOUSE WAS LEASED OUT @ RS 90,000/- P.M, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTION. THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE STA TING THAT THE VALUATION REPORT HAD BEEN PREPARED BY A WELL CO MPETENT VALUER WHO HAD TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT EVERY MINUTE DETA IL OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN PREPARED THE VALUATION REPORT AND THAT MERE REBUTTAL OF THE SAME DID NOT RENDER THE FAIR M ARKET RENT, AS WORKED OUT IN THE VALUATION REPORT, INVALI D OR ERRONEOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE FAIR RENT OF THE LET O UT PORTION, AS ASSESSED BY THE GOVT. APPROVED VALUER WAS TREAT ED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.14,87,604/- AS AGAINST RS.4,09,830/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD.CI T(A) WHO ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HO LDING AS UNDER: ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 4 OF 12 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF S.23(1) AND S.23(4)(B) O F THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: SECTION 23 (4)- WHERE THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2} CONSISTS OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE (A) THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SUB-SECTION SHAFT APPLY ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE OF SUCH HOUSES, WHICH THE ASSESSES M AY, AT HIS OPTION, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF; (B) THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE OR HOUSES, OTHER THAN THE HOUSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXERCISE D AN OPTION UNDER CLAUSE (A), SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) AS IF SUCH HOUSE OR HOUSES HAD BEEN LET . (C) SECTION 23(1 )- 23. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE (A) THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR: OR 27.2.1 THUS, AFORESAID PROVISIONS SHOW HOW THE ANNU AL LET OUT VALUE (ALV) IS TO BE DETERMINED I.E. THE SUM FO R WHICH VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR FOR DETERMINING THE ALV U/S 23(1 )(A), THE AO HAS JO DETERMINE THE FAIR/REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED TO B E FETCHED BY THE PROPERTY, !T THE PROPERTY IS GOVERNED BY THE RE NT CONTROL ACT, THE STANDARD RENT IS ONE OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO, HOWEVER, THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OR STANDARD RENT IS NOT BINDING ON THE AO BUT IS A GUI DING FACTOR FOR DETERMINING THE REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED TO BE FETCHED BY THE PROPERTY- IF THE AO FINDS THAT THE M UNICIPAL VALUE IS NOT BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR DETERMI NING FAIR RENT M THE MARKET AND THERE IS A SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR TAKING DIFFERENT VALUATION, THE AO CAN DETERMINE TH E FAIR RENT BY INFLATING OR DEFLECTING THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OR S TANDARD RENT, IF THE AO FINDS THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS LE SS THAN THE FAIR MARKET RENT BECAUSE OF THE ABNORMALLY HIGH INT EREST-FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT, HE CAN UNDERTAKE NECESSARY EXERCI SE IN THAT ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 5 OF 12 BEHALF IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT LESSOR HAS ACCEPTED RS,15,00,000/- DEPOSIT AS ADVANCE RENT OVER AND ABO VE RENT PAID PER MONTH, HOWEVER, THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTERE ST FREE SECURITY/DEPOSIT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS DETERMINATIVE F ACTOR TO ARRIVE AT FAIR RENT THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER FOR RENT ON THE S PECIFIC PROPERTY WHICH DETERMINED RENT @RS.3,00,000/- PER M ONTH APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC DEF ECTS IN THE SAID REPORT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN THE CASE OF SMT INDU S. JAIN VS ITO (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 471 (MUM.), HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT - .MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE IF DETERMINED CORRECT LY COULD BE TAKEN AS ALV BUT THE SAME WAS SNOT BINDING ON THE AO IN CASE AO COULD SHOW THAT RATEABLE VALUE U NDER MUNICIPAL LAWS DOES NOT REPRESENT CORRECT FAIR RENT THEN, HE MAY DETERMINE THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PLA CED ON RECORD. 27.2.2. IT IS CLEAR THAT, AO HAS BEEN VESTED WITH T HE POWER TO DETERMINE THE ALV U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE A O HAS TO DETERMINE THE FAIR/REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED TO BE F ETCHED BY THE PROPERTY. IF THE PROPERTY IS GOVERNED BY THE RE NT CONTROL ACT, THE STANDARD RENT IS ONE OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OR STANDARD RENT IS NOT BINDING ON THE AO BUT IS A GUIDING FACT OR FOR DETERMINING THE REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED TO BE FETC HED BY THE PROPERTY. IF THE AO FINDS THAT THE MUNICIPAL VALUE IS NOT BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR DETERMINING FAIR RENT IN T HE MARKET AND THERE IS A SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR TAKING DIFFERENT VALUATION, THE AO CAN DETERMINE THE FAIR RENT BY IN FLATING OR DEFLECTING THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OR STANDARD RENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED ALV OF THE LET OUT PART OF THE SAID HOUSE @ RS 3,00,000/- P.M. TOTALING TO RS.36,00,000 /- P.A. APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE ESTIMATION M ADE BY THE AO WITH ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION OF ANY EX AMPLE FROM THE SAME SECTOR I.E. SECTOR-4, CHANDIGARH. WITHOUT REPEATING THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO'S DETERMINATION OF THE ALV OF THE LET OUT HOUSE IS FAIR AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. HOWEVER, AO HAS TO ADD AMOUNT OF 10% P.A. INCREASE IN ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE AND REDUCE THE RENTAL INCOME ALREADY OFFERED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME. HE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 24 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, AS NO DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIME D AGAINST THE ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 6 OF 12 INCOME HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME ARE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE AO. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.2 TO 5 ARE DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN A PPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO, 10353/16-17 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WORTHY C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD, AO HAD MADE REFERENCE TO VALUATION FIRM FOR VALUATION OF RENTAL INCOME OF PROPERTY EVE N WHEN HE LACKED SUCH POWERS OF REFERENCE AND HAD THEREBY ERRED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS . 14,87,604/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS RENTAL INCOME RECEIVABLE FROM, THE PROPERTY. 3. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY C1T (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ERRED IN USING THE REPORT OF VALUATION FIRM FOR VALUATION OF RENTAL INCOME OF PROPERTY EVEN WHEN SUCH REPORT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT OF RENTAL INCOME U/S 23ANDTHELD.AOHASTHEREBY ERRED IN MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.14,87,604/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS RENTAL INCOME RECEIVABLE FROM THE PROPERTY. 4. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 14,87,604/- BY REPLACING THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED HAVING BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT WITH ESTIMATES OF RENT RECEIVABLE FROM THE PROPERTY BY RELYING BLINDLY ON VALUATION CONSIDERIN G INHERENT WEAKNESS, DAMAGES AND MARKET AS WERE DULY PROVIDED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 7 OF 12 5. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREIN LD. AO HAD ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30% U/S 24 OUT OF ENHANCED RENTAL INCOME EVEN WHEN THE! APPELLANT WAS CLEARLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAME. 6. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF LD. JCIT WHEREIN THE LD. JCIT HAD ERRED IN NOT CONDUCTING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FAIRLY AS THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPELLANT U/ S 144A HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE LD. JCIT WITHOUT GRANTING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. TAKING UP GROUND NO 2-4, WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS TO THE REFERENCE MADE AND RELIANCE PLACED ON THE REPORT OF A VALUER FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS NO P ROVISION UNDER LAW ALLOWING THE AO TO REFER THE VALUATION OF THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO A VALUER NO R COULD THE FAIR RENT BE DETERMINED BASED ON REPORT OF A VA LUER. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED INST ANCES OF COMPARABLE RENT AND NO REASON HAD BEEN GIVEN FOR RE JECTING THE SAME. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 8 OF 12 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AND HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 9. THE ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IV-C OF THE A CT. AS PER THE CHARGING SECTION 22, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY IS CHARGED TO TAX, WHICH ANNUAL VALUE HAS BEEN DEFINED U/S 23 OF THE ACT. THE REMAINING SECTIONS DEAL WITH DEDUCT IONS FROM THE ANNUAL VALUE AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO ARREARS OF RENT ETC. SINCE THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS CONFINED TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ANNUAL VALUE, SECTION 23 IS TH E RELEVANT PROVISION TO BE INTERPRETED FOR ADJUDICATING THE IS SUE BEFORE US. 10. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND HE HAS REPRODUCED THE SAID SECTION WHICH STATES THAT THE ANNUAL LETTING OUT VALUE (ALV) IS THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR (SECTION 23(1)(A). INTERPRETING THE SA ME HE HAS STATED THAT FOR DETERMINING THE ALV, THE FAIR /REAS ONABLE RENT HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, WE FIND, HE HAS STATED THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS GOVERNED BY THE RENT CONTROL ACT, THE STANDARD RENT IS ONE OF THE VARIOU S FACTORS ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 9 OF 12 TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR R ENT. EVEN THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION, HE HAS STATED, IS A FACTOR WHICH CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FURTHER S TATED THAT THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OR STANDARD RENT IS NOT BI NDING ON THE AO BUT IS THE GUIDING FACTOR FOR DETERMINING TH E REASONABLE RENT EXPECTED TO BE FETCHED BY THE PROPE RTY AND IF THE AO FINDS THAT THE MUNICIPAL VALUE IS NOT BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR DETERMINING FAIR RENT IN THE MARKET AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR TAKING D IFFERENT VALUE THE AO CAN DETERMINE THE FAIR RENT BY INFLATI NG OR DEFLATING THE MUNICIPAL VALUE OR STANDARD RENT. 11. SO FAR AS THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVI SIONS OF THE RELEVANT SECTIONS BY THE LD.CIT(A) ARE CONCERNE D, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME. IN FACT WE FIND THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF A PROPERTY CANNOT EXCE ED ITS STANDARD RENT AS UNDER RENT CONTROL LAW WHERE APPLI CABLE, LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DAULATRA I VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE 122 ITR 700 (SC) AND SHEI LA KAUSHIK VS CIT (1981)131 ITR 435(SC). AND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE (1)(B) TO SECTION 23, ONLY IF ACTUAL RENT EX CEEDS FAIR RENT/STANDARD RENT, IT SHALL BE TREATED AS ANNUAL V ALUE OF PROPERTY. ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 10 OF 12 12. THEREFORE THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE PROPOSIT ION THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF A PROPERTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT, THE REA SONABLE RENT IS TO DETERMINED WHICH CANNOT EXCEED THE STAND ARD RENT FIXED UNDER THE RENT CONTROL LAW WHERE APPLICABLE O R IDEALLY THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION AND ANY DIGRESSION FROM THE SAME IS TO BE SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. 13. BUT WE FIND THAT WHILE APPLYING THIS INTERPRETA TION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRAVELY ERRED. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE HA D RETURNED ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OF RS.6,50,000/- AND DEDUCTED EXPENSES THEREFROM DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.4,09,830/-,WHILE THE REVENUE HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET RENT RELATIN G TO ASSESSES SHARE OF PROPERTY AT RS.14,87,604/- BASED ON VALUATION REPORT OF A GOVT. APPROVED VALUER. THE RE VENUE WHILE DOING SO HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE VALUATION R EPORT AS SACROSANCT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT UNDERTAKING ANY EXER CISE FOR DETERMINING ITS MUNICIPAL VALUE OR STANDARD RENT, W HEN AS PER THE LD.CIT(A) HIMSELF AND AS PER LAW INTERPRETE D BY COURTS IN THIS REGARD, THESE ARE THE GUIDING FACTO RS FOR DETERMINING THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ANY ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 11 OF 12 DEVIATION FROM THE SAME IS TO BE BASED ON EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT IT IS WRONG. WE FIND THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR DETERMI NING THE ANNUAL ALV OF THE PROPERTY AS BEING ARBITRARY. NO R EASON HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR ADOPTING THE FAIR RENT DETERMINE D BY THE VALUER AS AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION OR OF THE STANDARD RENT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS NOT EVEN BEEN DETER MINED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 14. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, THE ADOPTION OF THE FAI R RENT AS DETERMINED BY A GOVT. APPROVED VALUER AS THE ANNUA L RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. THE INCOME S O DETERMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OF RS.14,87,6 00/- IS SET ASIDE AND THAT RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REST ORED . GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2,3,& 4 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLO WED IN ABOVE TERMS. 15. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RELATING TO DENIAL OF DED UCTION FROM THE RENTAL INCOME ASSESSED, IS WE FIND OF NO R ELEVANCE SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE RENTAL INCOME ASSESSED BY THE REVENUE AS ABOVE. 16. VIS A VIS GROUND NO.6, NO ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B EFORE ITA NO.53/CHD/ 2020 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 12 OF 12 US AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /DATED: 12 TH OCTOBER, 2021 * * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR