VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 26(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6773/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, F MUMBAI , . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA, C/O- M/S C.M. GABHAWALA & COMPANY, 42, NANIK NIWAS, 30 DR. D.D. SATHE MARG, GIRGAUM MUMBAI-400004 / VS. ADDL. CIT-26(1), 6 TH FLOOR, K.G. MITTAL AAYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI-400002 ( #$% & /ASSESSEE) ( ' / REVENUE) PAN. NO. AFYPM7833C ( ') * & + / DATE OF HEARING : 07/03/2016 * & + / DATE OF ORDER: 11/03/2016 #$% & ! / ASSESSEE BY SHRI GIRISH DAVE ' ! / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJIV PANT ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THIS ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 17/10/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE ONLY GROUND AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RE SPECT TO UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 23(1)(A) AT AGAI NST RS.35,19,000/- WHEN ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED WAS RS.4,2 0,000/- AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER T HE ACT) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE RENT OF RS.2 ,55,000/-, PER MONTH WAS RECEIVED FOR THE SAID PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 21/05/2006 WITH M /S MATRIX INDUSTRIES SOUTH EAST ASIA PVT. LTD. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI GIRISH DAVE, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS WHICH IS IDENT ICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY FURTHER SUBMITTING THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A OWNER OF FLAT WHICH WAS LET OUT AT RS.35,000/- PE R MONTH FOR THREE YEARS VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 23/10/2008. I T WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THIS FLAT WAS EARLIER LET OUT T O MATRIX INDUSTRIES AT THE RENT OF RS. 2,55,000/-, PER MONTH ON AGREEMENT FOR THREE YEARS AND ASSESSEE RECEIVED SEC URITY DEPOSIT OF RS.5.10 LAKHS. THE AGREEMENT WAS TERMINA TED PREMATURELY AND THE TENANT VACATED THE SAME. THE AS SESSING OFFICER GOT ENQUIRY FROM THE SAME SOCIETY, WHEREIN, THE INSPECTOR MADE ENQUIRIES AND REPORTED THAT IN THE S AME ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 3 SOCIETY, A FLAT MEASURING 530 SQ. FT., THE OWNER OF THE FLAT WAS GETTING RENT AT RS.65,000/- PER MONTH, WHEREAS, THE AREA OF FLAT, OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS OF 2200 SQ. FT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ENQUIRY REPORT WAS NOT CONFRONTE D TO THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY VS CIT (2001) 116 TAXMAN 491 (SC) ; 249 ITR 216 (SC) AND DCIT VS DIVEN DEMBLA (2013) 37 TAXMAN.COM 127 (MUM. TRIB.). IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 11/04/2013 WERE NOT CONSIDERED B Y THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR, SHRI RAJIV PANT, ST RONGLY DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTUAL FINDING RECOR DED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF FOUR BEDROOM FLAT HAVING AREA OF 2200 SQ. FT. AT BLUE HEAVEN COOPERATIVE HOU SING SOCIETY, SITUATED IN POSH AREA OF MALABAR HILLS. E ARLIER, THIS FLAT WAS LET OUT AT A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.2,55,000/- (A.Y. 2006-07) AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.5,10,000/- WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEAR S. LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO ANOTHER LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 23/10/2008 FOR THE SAME FLAT ON A I NTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.4 CRORES AND A MONTHLY RENT OF ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 4 RS.35,000/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT RS.35,000/- IS NOT THE TRUE/FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE SAME PROPERTY, FOR EARLI ER YEARS, WAS RENTED OUT AT A RENT OF RS.2,55,000/- PER MONTH . IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT BEFORE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSI ON, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, SENT HIS INSPECTOR TO EXAMINE TH E FACTS FROM THE SAME SOCIETY/NEARBY AREA, WHO REPORTED THA T ONE FLAT IN THE SAME SOCIETY MEASURING 530 SQ. FT. WAS RENTED OUT FOR RS.65,000/- PER MONTH AND SINCE THE FLAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS OF 2200 SQ. FT. HAVING FOUR BEDROOMS, THEREFORE, PROPORTIONATELY, THE RENT COMES TO RS.2,70,000/- PE R MONTH. 2.3. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS), THE FACTUAL MATRIX ALONG WITH THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE (REPRODUCED AT PAGES 5 TO 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) AND THEREAFTER AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.4. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, UNDER THE FACTS, NARRAT ED HEREINABOVE, FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREU NDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT FOR READY REFERE NCE AND ANALYSIS:- ANNUAL VALUE HOW DETERMINED. ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 5 23. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22, THE ANNUAL VALU E OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE (A) THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABL Y BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR; OR (B) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AM OUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE; OR (C) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVA BLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE : PROVIDED THAT THE TAXES LEVIED BY ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RE SPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEDUCTED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH TAXES WAS INCURRED BY THE OWNER ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMP LOYED BY HIM) IN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARE ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (B) OR CLAU SE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER SHALL NOT INCLUDE, SUBJECT TO SUCH RULES 8 AS MAY BE MADE IN THIS BEHALF, THE AMOUNT OF RENT WHICH THE OWNER CAN NOT REALISE. (2) WHERE THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF A HOUSE OR PART OF A HOUSE WHICH (A) IS IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE OWNER FOR THE PURP OSES OF HIS OWN RESIDENCE; OR (B) CANNOT ACTUALLY BE OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER BY RE ASON OF THE FACT THAT OWING TO HIS EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CAR RIED ON AT ANY OTHER PLACE, HE HAS TO RESIDE AT THAT OTHER PLACE I N A BUILDING NOT BELONGING TO HIM, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF SUCH HOUSE OR PART OF THE HOUSE SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE NIL. (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL NOT APP LY IF (A) THE HOUSE OR PART OF THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (B) ANY OTHER BENEFIT THEREFROM IS DERIVED BY THE OWNER. (4) WHERE THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION ( 2) CONSISTS OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE (A) THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE OF SUCH HOUSES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY, AT HIS OPTI ON, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF; ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 6 (B) THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE OR HOUSES, OTHER THAN THE HOUSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXERCISED AN OPTI ON UNDER CLAUSE (A), SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AS I F SUCH HOUSE OR HOUSES HAD BEEN LET. 2.5. IF THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF THE ACT IS ANAL YZED, EXPLANATION-1 HAS CLARIFIED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES O F SUB- SECTION (1), THE ANNUAL RENT MEANS (A) THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR (B) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAU SE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE. 2.6. FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL V ALUE, AS PER SECTION 23(1), FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 2 2, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR (SECTION 23(1)(A)) OR THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF (WHER E THE PROPERTY OR PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET). THE EXCE SS OF SUM REFERRED TO IN SECTION 23(1)(A), THE AMOUNT SO RECE IVED OR RECEIVABLE (SECTION 23(1)(B) OF THE ACT). 2.7. PRIOR TO THE 1975 AMENDMENT I.E. UP TO A.Y. 1 975- 76, ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE WAS NOT DECI SIVE IN DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, ALTH OUGH, IT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE. UP TO A.Y. 197 5-76, THE STANDARD RENT WAS TO BE REGARDED AS BEING THE ANNUA L LETTING ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 7 VALUE AND NOT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE LANDL ORD ASSESSEE FROM THE TENANT (BALKRISHNAN KAPOOR VS ITO 219 ITR 141)(DEL.) AND L. BANSHIDHAR & SONS VS CIT (199 3) 201 ITR 655. AFTER THE 1975 AMENDMENT, IF THE ACTUAL R ENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS IN EXCESS OF NOTIONAL ANN UAL VALUE, THE ACTUAL RENT SHALL BE DEEMED, U/S 23(1)(B) OF TH E ACT, TO BE THE ANNUAL VALUE, FOR AND FROM A.Y. 1976-77 (CIT VS H.P. SHARM 122 ITR 675 (DEL.)). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE FIRST FOUR LINES AS ALSO THE LAST FOUR LINES OF THE PARAGRAPH TITLE ACTUAL RENT REALIZED, HOW FAR DECISIVE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED VERBATIM (EXCLUDING THE CITATIONS) IN CIT VS JOHNY JOSEPH (2000) 241 ITR 423 (KER.) AND CIT VS G. RAMESAN ; B . INDIRA DEVI (2000) 241 ITR 426 (KER.). WHERE LETTING OUT P ROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER THE RENT C ONTROL ENACTMENT AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THE AGREED RENT IS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE THEN THE ACT UAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE FAIR ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. OUR VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS IN CIT VS MODY SPINNING & MFG. M ILLS COMPANY LTD. 125 ITR 361 (ALL.) AND CIT VS MODY IND USTRIES LTD. 200 ITR 350 (DEL.). FROM A CONJOINT READING O F SECTION 23(1)(A) AND 23(1)(B), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HIGHER OF THE TWO AMOUNTS VIS THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE OR THE REASONABLE RENT, WHICH REFERS TO STANDARD OR FAIR R ENT, SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHARGED U/S 22 OF THE ACT (CIT VS PARASMAL CHORADIA (1998) 145 CTR (MAD.) 468)). THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS J.K. INVESTORS BOMBAY LTD. (2001) 248 ITR 723 HELD THAT IN ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 8 SECTION 23(1)(B), THE WORD RECEIVABLE THE NOTES P AYMENT OF ACTUAL RENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD, IF IN A GIVEN YEAR, A PORTION OF THE ACTUAL RENT IS IN ARREARS, I T WOULD STILL COME WITHIN SECTION 23(1)(B) AND IT IS FOR THIS REA SON THAT THE WORD RECEIVABLE MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF TH E WORD RECEIVED IN SECTION 23(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 2.8. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, ADMITTEDLY, THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT TO METRICS INDUSTRIES SOUT H EAST ASIA PVT. LTD. IN THE YEAR 2006 FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.2,55,000/-. THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE WOULD RECEIVE ANNUAL RENT OF RS.30,60,000/-, IN ADV ANCE FOR EACH TERM OF TWELVE MONTHS AND THE AGREEMENT WAS FO R A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS ALONG WITH THE SECURITY DEPOS IT OF RS.5,10,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE PREMATURE LY, TERMINATED THE AGREEMENT AND ENTERED INTO LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 23/10/2008 FOR THE SAME PROPERTY WI TH HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.35 ,000/- ONLY AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST FREE SECURI TY DEPOSIT OF RS.4 CRORES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SH OW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY RS.2,55,000/-, BEI NG THE NORMAL RENT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM EARLIER AGREEMENT, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE TH E ALV AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONSIDERED AND THEREAFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, A PARTICULAR DECISION WAS ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 9 ARRIVED AT. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED OR SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT . IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PRESUMPTION, WHEN VIDE AGREEMENT IN 2006, THE ASSES SEE RECEIVED THE MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 2,55,000/-. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT BEFORE COMING TO A CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ENQUIRIES THROUGH HIS INSPECTOR AND IT WAS FOU ND THAT IN THE SAME SOCIETY, A ONE BEDROOM FLAT MEASURING 5 30 SQ. FT. WAS LET OUT FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.65,000/-. THE FLAT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF 2200 SQ. FT. CONSISTING OF FOUR BEDROOMS AND IF PROPORTIONATE RENT IS TAKEN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.2,70,000/- PER MONTH. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVING RENT IN A.Y. 2006 O N A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.2,55,000/-, HE INCREASED AT THE RATE OF 5% PER ANNUM AND WORKED OUT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,93,250/-, BUT BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, HE ADO PTED THE MONTHLY RENT AT RS.2,87,500/-. WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED VA RIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING DAULAT RAJ KAPOOR VS NDMC (122 ITR 700)(SC). WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT EXAMI NED THE ISSUE OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF RENT, DUE TO INTEREST FR EE DEPOSITS AND BANK GUARANTEES TAKEN BY THE LANDLORD, IN DIT V S TRANSMARAINE CORPORATION (CIVIL APPEAL NO.5470 OF 2 011) (ARISING OUT OF SLP NO.8999 OF 2009), WHEREIN, THE HONBLE APEX COURT DISCUSSED/EXAMINED THE CASE OF J.K. INVE STORS (BOMBAY) LTD. (248 ITR 723)(BOM.) AND LAID DOWN CER TAIN QUESTIONS. TOTALITY OF FACTS CLEARLY INDICATES THA T RENT HAS ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 10 BEEN UNDERSTATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THA T SAME FLAT WAS RENTED OUT IN 2006 ON A RENT OF RS.2,55,0 00/- BUT LATER ON RENTED OUT FOR RS.35,000/- (IN 2008) BY GE TTING INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS OF RS.4 CRORES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTATED THE RE NT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE FIND THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER A ND ALSO THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE FACTS LIKE EARLIER RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, P RESENT MARKET RATE IN THE SAME BUILDING, BENEFIT ARRIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPO SIT OF RS.4 CRORES, INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY FROM THE SAME BUILDING/ ADJOINING AREA AND THEN REACHED TO A PARTICULAR CON CLUSION. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE DECISION F ROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS AKSHAY TEXTILE TRADING AGENCY PVT. LTD., THIRD MEMBER OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ITO VS BAKER TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 125 ITD 1(MUM .)(TM), WHEREIN, THE DECISION FROM HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND HONBLE APEX COURT WERE CONSIDERED. SO FAR AS, THE CONTENT ION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS W ERE PARTLY CONSIDERED AND THE MATTER MAY BE SENT TO THE FILE O F THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, IS CONCERNED, WE ARE NOT AGREEIN G WITH THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE VERY MUCH CLEAR AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IN SENDING THIS FILE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ALREADY MADE REQUIRED ENQUIRIES FROM THE AREA INCLU DING THE RENT PREVALENT IN THE SAME SOCIETY, WHERE THE FLAT IN QUESTION IS AVAILABLE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, IF PROPORTIONA TE RENT IS ITA NO.6773/MUM/2013 SHRI VIJAY BALDEV MEHRA 11 ADOPTED (ONE BEDROOM FLAT OF 530 SQ. FT. IN THE SAM E BUILDING WAS LET OUT FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.65,00 0/-) STILL IT COMES TO RS.2,70,000/- PER MONTH, THUS, IT CAN BE C ONCLUDED THAT THE RATIO LAID BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN DIT V S TRANSMARIANE CORPORATION, SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CON CLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/03/2016. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; , DATED : 11/03/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -./ / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. 01./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 2 2 ( 3& ( - ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 2 2 ( 3& / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. 5'6 0&# , 2 -+ -# 7 , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8$ ) / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, 15& 0& //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI