MAHIPATRAY SHAH HUF, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5502/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1977 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C W ANGOLKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 5502 /MUM/ 2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0 ) MAHIPATRAY SHAH HUF 6 TH FLOOR, 23F AKRUTI, DOONGERSEY ROAD WALKESHWAR MUMBAI - 400 036. VS. DCIT, CC - 5(1) MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAFHM0519R ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI C.W. ANGOLKAR DATE OF HEARING 7 .1 1 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 7 . 11 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE APP E AL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.7.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 53, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 209 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RE SPECT OF DEEMED TO BE LET OUT PROPERTIES. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE PLEA THAT IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF APPOINTING A COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE MATTER. SINCE THE REAS ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A REASONABLE ONE, WE REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SIX FLATS IN AN MAHIPATRAY SHAH HUF 2 APARTMENT NAMED AKRUTI LOCATED AT WAL KESHWAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ALL THE FLATS A RE SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD AVAIL EXEMP TION ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE FLAT AND ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF OTHER FLATS HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY TREATING THE SAME AS DEEMED TO BE LET OUT PROPERTY AS REQUIRED U/S. 23(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE ANY INCOME AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 23(4) O F THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE AO COMPUTED ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF FIVE FLATS AT 8% OF THE COST OF THE FLATS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WITH REGARD TO D E TE RMINATION OF THE ANNUAL LE TTING VALUE, WE NOTICE THAT HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS EXPLAINED THE MANNER OF DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY (2014) ( 48 TAXMAN.COM 191 ) . WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THE ANNUAL LET TING VALUE WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DETERMINE THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 .1 1 .2016 SD/ - SD/ - (PAWAN SINGH) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 7 / 1 1 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT MAHIPATRAY SHAH HUF 3 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS