TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ACIT - 17 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 7001/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1786 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR AGARWARL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 250; 143(2); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7001/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 ) TRANSMARINE CORPORATION 15, DUBASH HOUSE, J.N. HEREDIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI. / VS. ACIT 17(3) MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAFFT6088G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWARL ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMIT PRATAP SINGH, CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING 19/10/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/10/2020 / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-28, MUMBAI PASSED U/S 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 2 - 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF R S. 37,97,657/- TOWARDS BPT LEASE RENT MADE BY THE A.O WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ANNUAL VALUE O F THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE A.O WITHOUT CONSIDER ING THE LEASE RENT PAID BY THE APPELLANT FIRM TO BPT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND OR AMEND ALL ANY FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.07.2013 DISCLOSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,72,64,680/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF TH E ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONER WERE ISSUED. IN COMPLIANC E TO THE NOTICE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR AND THE CASE WA S DISCUSSED. THE A.O ON PERUSAL OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED TH E BUILDING DUBASH HOUSE ON LEASE FROM BOMBAY PORT TRUST (BPT). FURTHER,THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS GIVEN TH E BUILDING ON RENT TO VARIOUS PARTIES /TENANTS AND SU CH ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 3 - RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE A.O FOUND THAT, THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS OFFERING THE RENTAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENT PAID TO BOMBAY PORT TRUST (BPT) OF RS. 37,39,000/-.THE A.O IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENT PAID TO THE BPT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE SUBMISSIONS ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE ON 16.03.2016 ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23 OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY AND THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEI VED THE RENT/LICENSE FEE FROM IT TENANTS AS PER AGREEME NTS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS TO PAY MANDATORILYLEASE RENT TO BOMBAY PORT TRUST (BPT).FURTHER,THE A.O HAS DEALT ON THE CLAUSES OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND TENANTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE LEASE RENT TO TH E BPT AND RECEIVING LICENSE FEE FROM THE TENANTS. THE LEASE RENT IS PAID TO BPT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LICEN SE FEE EARNED. THE A.O IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30% OF NAV U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE NO OTHER DEDUCTION IS ALLO WED. ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 4 - HENCE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LEASE RENT PAID TO BP T AND COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,98,81,630/- AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON26-03- 2016. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A),WHEREAS,THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT CONCORD WITH THE ACTION OF THE A.O IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A),THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OVERLOOKED THE MAJOR FACT S AND THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A LEASE HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS TO PAY THE LEA SE RENT TO BOMBAY PORT TRUST (BPT) AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES LICENCE FEES AS PER THE AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS TENANTS.THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE THE CIT(A), IN PARTICULAR AT PAGE 6 PARA 3. 1 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR ARE THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 5 - DETERMINED U/S 23(1)(B) WERE THE ACTUAL RENT IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE ASSESSE APPEAL. 4. CONTRA, HE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD.THE SOLE MATRIX OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO BOMBAY PORT TRUS T (BPT). WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS CLAIMED THE LEASE RENT PAID AS DEDUCTION FROM THE RENTAL INCOME/LICENCE FEE RECEIVED FROM ITS TENANTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS ON THE CLAUSES OF THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS. THE LD AR EMPHASIZED ON THE FACT OF PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL REN T TO BE CHARGED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEI VED. THE LD. AR MENTIONED THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23(1)(B) OF THE ACT. WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIAT E TO REFER TO SEC. 23(1)(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS READ AS UNDER: ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 6 - (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 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 (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 SU M REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED O R RECEIVABLE; OR 6. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS TO PAY THE LEASE RENT OF BUILDING TO ITS OWNER BOMBAY PORT TRUST (BPT) AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH TENANTS A ND RECEIVING THE RENT. THE A.O DEALT ON THE CLAUSES AN D AGREEMENTS ENTERED WITH THE TENANTS AND ARE NOT DISPUTED. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIO N. 1. CIT VS. RJ WOODS P. LTD (334 ITR 358) 2. DCIT VS. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (ITA NO. 822/DEL/2010 DATED 28.10.2011), DEL TRIB. 3. M/S. SUMAN DIDWANIA VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 5805/MUM/2010, DATED 15.02.2012), MUM TRIB. 4. KRISHNA BHOJWANI VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 1463/MUM/2012, DATED JULY 3, 2017). 5. SHARMIAL TAGORE VS. JCIT (150 TAXMAN 4) MUM. MAG. ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 7 - 6. ITO VS. GOPICHAND P. GODHWANI (1 SOT 374) MUM TRIB. 7. WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RJ WOODS P. LTD (SUPRA) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED A S UNDER: SECTION 22 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY - CHARGEABLE AS -ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 96- 97 TO 2000-01 - IN RESPECT OF PREMISES LEASED OUT B Y ASSESSEE, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER CHARGES PAID BY ASSESSEE WERE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM RENT WHILE COMPUT ING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] I. THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASED OUT ITS PREMISES TO FIVE TE NANTS. LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO IN THIS BEHALF WHEREIN RENT TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TH OSE TENANTS WAS SPECIFIED. THE TENANCIES BECAME OPERATI VE WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER, 1992. HOWEVER, DISPUTE AR OSE ABOUT PAYMENT OF THE SAID RENT. SAID PREMISES WERE IN A MULTI-STOREY BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES WERE PAYABLE BY THE OCCUPIER TO THE AGENCY/BUILDER MAINTAINING THE BUILDING. THE TENANTS CLAIMED THAT THE RENT PAYABLE BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS THE OBLI GATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WANTED THESE TENANTS T O PAY THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES EXCLUSIVE OF CONTRACTUAL RE NT. BECAUSE OF THIS DISPUTE, THE TENANTS FILED A SUIT I N SMALL CAUSES COURT FOR FIXATION OF STANDARD RENT. IN THAT CASE, THE SMALL CAUSES COURT PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER IN 1 994 FIXING THE RENT AT RS.30,000 PER MONTH, WHICH WAS L ESS THAN THE CONTRACTUAL RENT AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE P ARTIES ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 8 - IN THE RENT AGREEMENT. SINCE THE RENT WAS FIXED ON LUMP SUM BASIS AT RS. 30,000 PER MONTH, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES, WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLA IM ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT THESE MAINTENANCE CHARGES WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE TENANTS . THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HOWEVER, ALLOWED THIS C LAIM WHICH VIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)WAS AFFIRME D BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL. HELD THAT SINCE THE MAINTENANCE AND OTHER CHARGES W ERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE DED UCTIBLE FROM THE RENT WHILE COMPUTING THE ANNUAL LETTING VA LUE. 7.1 WE ALSO FIND IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUMAN DIDWANIA VS. ACIT (SUPRA), HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS HEL D AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL PLAC ED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHARMILA TAGORE VS. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 AND IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. GOPICHAND P. GODWANI 1 SOT 374 (MUM). THE L D. D.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHARMIL A TAGORE (SUPRA) IN THE SAID CASE IT IS HELD THAT THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED EVEN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S.23. WE, ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 9 - 7.2 WE FIND IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. GOPICHAND P. GODHWANI (SUPRA) THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY IT IS IN EXCESS OF FAIR RENT OR STANDARD RENT UNDER THE RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION. IF THIS CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS CORR ECT, THEN THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME HAS TO BE DETERMINED UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) , OTHERWISE THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) . SECTION 23(1)(A) & (B) BEING RELEVANT PROVISIONS APPLICABLE FOR DECIDING THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : '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 (B) WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE O WNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE;' IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE BELOW THE OBSERVAT IONS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. J.K. INVESTORS (BOMBAY) LTD . (2001) 248 ITR 723 (BOM) RELATING TO THE ABOVE PROVISION OF INCOME-TAX : 'IN THIS MATTER, WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE SC HEME OF TAXATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SECTION 22 SAYS ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 10 - THAT THE MEASURE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS I TS ANNUAL VALUE. THE ANNUAL VALUE IS TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 23 . SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 23 , BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1976-77, HAS TWO LIMBS, NAMELY, CLAUSES (A) AND (B). CLAUSE (A) STATES THAT THE ANN UAL VALUE IS THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASO NABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. CLAUSE (B) COVERS A CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ACTUAL REN T IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, INSERTION OF CLAUSE (B) BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT , 1915, COVERS A CASE WHERE THE RENT FOR A YEAR ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE OWNER IS IN EXCESS OF THE LAWFUL RENT WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE FAIRRENT OR STAND ARD RENT UNDER THE RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION. THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT APPLY BOTH TO OWNER-OCCUPIED PROPERTY AS ALSO TO PROPERTY WHICH I S LET OUT AND THE MEASURE OF VALUATION TO DECIDE THE ANNU AL VALUE IS THE STANDARD RENT OR THE FAIR RENT. HOWEVER, SECTION 23(1)(B) ONLY APPLIES TO CASES WHERE THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS MORE THAN THE REASONABLE RE NT UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT SECTION 23(1)(B) CONTEMPLATES THAT IN SUCH CASES THE ANNUAL VALUE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED.' 6. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY REVENUE THAT ONLY SECTION 23(1)(B) IS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IT IS ALSO NO T THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE HAS COMPUTED TH E HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AS PER ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, IF THE OUTGOINGS IN RESPECT OF WHICH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY CIT (A) WERE THE LIA BILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM T HE ASSESSABLE INCOME AS THE NET AMOUNT ONLY CAN BE ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 11 - CONSIDERED WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER EXPRESS PROVISION S OF SECTION 23(1)(B) . HOWEVER, THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN ASCERTAINED THAT WHETHER THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CAR-PARKING, WATER CHARGES AND MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND OTHER CHARGES WERE THE ACTUAL LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THIS FACTUAL ASPECT HAS TO BE EXAM INED AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT AS WELL AS KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER. WE, THEREFORE, CO NSIDER IT NECESSARY TO RESTORE THESE APPEALS AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETE RMINE THE FACT THAT WHETHER EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CAR PARKING, WATER CHARGES, MUNICIPAL CH ARGES AND OTHER CHARGES (AS SHOWN IN THE CHARTS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REPRODUCED ABOVE) WERE THE LIABILITY O F THE ASSESSEE AND WERE OUTGOINGS FROM THE ASSESSEES RENT AL INCOME SHOWN IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. IF IT IS S O, THE SAME ARE RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE CIT (A) AS THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIL L DETERMINE THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS. WE MAY POINT OUT HERE THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAM INING THIS FACTUAL ASPECT, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE CONSIDERED ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. WE CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS, THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1) (B) OF THE ACT ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN TITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENT PAID TO THE ITA NO .7001 /MUM/2018 M/S. TRANSMARINE CORPORATION, MUMBAI. - 12 - BOMBAY PORT TRUST(BPT) AGAINST THE LEAVE AND LICENS E FEE/RENT RECEIVED FROM THE TENANTS IN DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.10.2020 SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 20/10/2020 KRK, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ) ( ) / CONCERNED CIT 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// 1. / ( ASST. REGISTRAR) !' #, / ITAT, MUMBAI