ACIT CC 6(4), MUMBAI V. JUBLIANT ENTERPRISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7101/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2514 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH PATNADE
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 14A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SRI G. S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 (A.Y.:2009-10) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6(4)[OLD CC 39], ROOM NO.32(1), GROUND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400001 VS. M/S. JUBILIANT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD/., 11-B, B WING, MITTAL TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400001 PAN:AAABCJ 4688D APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 (A.Y.:2009-10) M/S. JUBILIANT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD/., 11-B, B WING, MITTAL TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400001 PAN:AAABCJ 4688D VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6(4)[OLD CC 39], ROOM NO.32(1), GROUND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400001 APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI PRAKASH PATNADE, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, AR DATE OF HEARING: 23-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20-07-2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE REVEN UE AND THE OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-41 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT (A)] DATED 28- 08-2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD T OGETHER AND ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 2 ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEIN G ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014. THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RA ISED FIVE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3: 3. GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AR E REGARDING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE [HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS ALV] OF THE PROPERTY AND GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5 ARE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] READ WITH RU LE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS RULE 8D]. 4. WITH REGARD TO GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE APPE AL RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ALV, THE BRIEF FAC TS ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL INCOME FROM ITS PROPERTIES LOCATED AT CORPORATE PARK AND KAMALA MILLS COMPOUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN THE ALV ALONG WITH RENT AND DEPOSITS TAKEN. THE ASS ESSEE IN THIS RESPECT FILED THE FOLLOWING CHART:- PARTICULARS OF PROPERTY NAME OF TENANT ANNUAL RENT (RS.) DEPOSIT TAKEN(RS.) UNIT 6, CORPORATE PARK, SION TROMBAY ROAD, CHEMBUR, AXIS BANK LTD. 1,89,80,500 1,82,70,000 ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 3 MUMBAI (10150 SQ. FT.) UNIT 14, CORPORATE PARK, SION TROMBAY ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI (10150 SQ. FT.) -DO- 43,64,400 4,76,10,000 UNIT 15, CORPORATE PARK, SION TROMBAY ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI (10150 SQ. FT.) -DO- 43,64,400 4,62,87,500 UNIT 1 TO 13, 2 ND FLOOR, KAMALA MILL COMPOUND, TRADE WORLD, B WING, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER AUTHORITIES PAREL, MUMBAI ICICI BANK LTD. 1,81,85,807 2,62,76,412 (REFUNDED ON 04.08.2008) UNIT 2, 3 RD FLOOR, ADDRESS DO- BAXTER INDIA PVT. LTD. 9,46,871 14,20,500 UNIT 7 & 8, BASEMENT, ADDRESS DO- -DO- 12,37,210 17,88,000 (REFUNDED ON 01.11.2008) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVE D IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE STATED PROPERTIES HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TA XATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED WITH REGARD TO THE THREE PR OPERTIES LOCATED AT CORPORATE PARK THAT THE RENT OF UNIT -6 WAS MORE THAN THE RENT OF UNIT NOS. 14 AND 15 BECAUSE OF LOCATION ADVANTAGE V IZ. MAIN ROAD FACING ETC. AND THAT THE AGREEMENTS IN RESPECT OF U NIT NOS. 14 AND 15 WERE QUITE OLD, EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 2001 AND 20 00 RESPECTIVELY, WHEREAS, THE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF UNIT NO.6 WAS EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 2008. THE AO HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST-FREE DEPOSITS IN REL ATION TO THE ABOVE PROPERTIES AND THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS MIGHT HAVE AF FECTED THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES. HE, THEREAFTER, DEPUTED AN INSPECTOR TO CONDUCT THE ENQUIRY REGARDING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 4 IN QUESTION. THE AO THEREAFTER, CONSIDERED THE NOTI ONAL/ESTIMATED FAIR MARKET RATES GIVEN BY THE INSPECTOR IN RELATIO N TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. BASED ON THE SAID MARKET RATES HE CAL CULATED THE FAIR RENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY CONSIDERING AD- HOC AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE @10% AND THEREBY DOING THE BACKWARD CALCULATION FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-1 2 AND ARRIVED AT A FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES AT CORPORATE PARK AT RS.4,44,27,866/ - AND IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES AT KAMALA MILL COMPOUND AT RS.1,4 4,92,240/-. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN IF, NOTIONAL INTERES T @16% OF THE DEPOSITS IS TAKEN AND ADDED TO THE RENTAL VALUE DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE, SO ARRIVED WOULD BE ALMOST THE SAME AS ARRIVED AT BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF THE R EPORT OF THE INSPECTOR. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,97, 72,400/- IN RESPECT OF UNIT NOS. 14 AND 15 OF CORPORATE PARK AN D RS.32,07,862/- IN RESPECT OF KAMALA MILL COMPOUND. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). THE LE ARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE O BSERVED THAT THE AO HAD MAINLY RELIED UPON THE INSPECTORS REPORT FO R FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 FOR DETERMINING THE ALV OF THE PROPERTIES I N QUESTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE ALSO NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 5 TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE SAID INSPECTORS REPORT WAS N OT CONFRONTED TO HIM. HE, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR WAS MORE OR LESS GENERAL REPORT AND NOT S PECIFIC IN NATURE. THE SAID REPORT DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAMES A ND ADDRESSES OF THE PROPERTY AGENTS/DEALERS CONTACTED BY THE INSPEC TOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. EVEN, IT DID NOT MENTION ANY COMPARABLE INSTANCE OF COMMERCIAL PROPE RTIES IN CORPORATE PARK AND KAMALA MILL COMPOUND WHICH WERE LET OUT. THE INSPECTOR HAD SIMPLY REPORTED THAT HE HAD CONTA CTED CERTAIN AGENTS WHO WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDING LET OUT CHARGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE SAID REPORT WAS VAGUE AND EVEN NO NAMES OF SUCH AGENTS WERE MENTIONED. NO SPECIFIC DETAILS WER E GIVEN, ONLY THE RATES PER SQ. FT. WERE MENTIONED. HOWEVER, NO D ETAILS OF THE SPECIFICATION OR INFRASTRUCTURES ETC. WERE MENTIONE D TO WHICH THOSE RATES WERE APPLICABLE. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT NO DETAILS OF COMPARABLE INSTANCES WERE OBTAINED BY THE INSPECTOR . HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS, THE SO- CALLED PREVAILING MARKET RATES OBTAINED BY THE INSP ECTOR COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCES . HE THEREAFTER OBSERVED THAT, AS PER THE SETTLED LAW AS LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, THE ALV IS THE SUM AT WHICH THE PROPERTY MA Y REASONABLY LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR UNINFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRA NEOUS ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 6 CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IS A RE LIABLE YARDSTICK IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT HOWEVER, THE ALV DETERMI NED CANNOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT AS PER THE RENT CONTROL LE GISLATION APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTIES. HE HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 WE RE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE IN HAND, AS THE TENANTS WERE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES HAVING PAID UP CAPITAL OF MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE EACH. HE HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION R ELATING TO THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WAS AVAILABLE. HE OBSERVED T HAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PRO PERTIES WAS FAR HIGHER THAN THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE FIXED BY M CGM. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 (1) OF THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1888 DEAL WITH DE TERMINATION OF RATEABLE VALUE OF THE LAND OR BUILDING ALSO USES THE WORDS ANNUAL RENT FOR WHICH SUCH LAND OR BUILDING MIGH T REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. HE OBSERVED THAT THE SAID WORDINGS ARE SIMILAR TO THE WORDINGS OF SECTION 23 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1) (A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE IN PARA-MATERIA WITH THA T OF THE PROVISIONS OF BMC. THUS, THE ANNUAL VALUE FIXED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES CAN BE SAFELY TREATED AS RATIONAL AND R EASONABLE YARDSTICK FOR DETERMINATION OF ALV U/S 23 (1) (A) O F THE INCOME ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 7 TAX ACT. HE, IN THIS RESPECT ALSO REFERRED TO THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. MRS. SHEILA KAUSHISH VS. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) 2. DIWAN DAULAT KAPOOR VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITT EE 122 ITR 700 (SC) 3. CIT VS. MONI KUMAR SUBBA 240 CTR 97 (DEL) (FB) AND 4. SMITABEN N. AMBANI VS CWT 323 ITR 104 (BOM) HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHATEVER BENEFITS WERE DER IVED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS THAT WERE DULY REFLECTED AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TY POGRAPHY & ORS. PASSED IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1213/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 08-08-2014 OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT IN THE SAID CASE LAID DOWN CERTAIN PRINCIPLES REGARDING DETERMI NATION OF ALV OF PROPERTIES AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE A RELIABLE EVIDENCE UNLESS T HE RENT IS INFLATED OR DEFLATED BY REASONS OF EXTRANEOUS CONSI DERATION AND THAT THE AO IS NOT PREVENTED FROM CARRYING OUT ANY INDEP ENDENT INVESTIGATION OR ENQUIRY REGARDING DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE WHERE HE HAS DERIVED A POSITIVE MATERIAL TO I NDICATE THAT THE PARTIES HAVE SUPPRESSED THE PREVAILING RATE OF THE LOCALITY. THE AO MUST NOT MAKE A GUESS WORK OR ACT ON CONJECTURE OR SURMISES. HE CAN MAKE A COMPARATIVE STUDY AND MAKE ANALYSIS. IN THIS REGARD, TRANSACTIONS OF IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR NATURE CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 8 OBTAINING THE REQUISITE DETAILS. THE AO MUST SAFEGU ARD AGAINST ADOPTING THE RATE STATING THEREIN STRAIGHTWAY, RATH ER, HE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT FACTORS. THAT THE AO MUST COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE AND SHOULD D ISCLOSE THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO OBTAIN HIS VIEW. THAT IF THE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTIES DOES NOT REFLECT ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN MERELY BECAUSE AN IN TEREST-FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED, THE AO SHOULD N OT PRESUME THAT THIS SUM OR THE INTEREST DERIVED THERE FROM IS THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE S, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE AO D ID NOT HAVE ANY DEFINITE AND POSITIVE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF THE PROPER TIES IN QUESTION. THE AO HAD MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN TRANSACTION S OF IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR NATURE OR COMPARABLE INSTANCES SHOWING A CTUAL LETTING OUT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE SAME PREMISES A T HIGHER RATES THAN THAT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONS IDERING THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TY POGRAPHY & ORS. (SUPRA), THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO TO THE ALV OF THE PROPERTIES. ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 9 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE LEARNE D CIT (A) HAS THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND HAS FO UND THAT THE AO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE BASIS O F A VAGUE AND GENERAL REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR. THERE WAS NO CREDI BLE AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO FOR ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MAR KET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES. EVEN, THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION OF THE PR OPERTIES WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT SIMILARLY PLACED PRO PERTIES LIKE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HAVING HIGHER RENTAL VALUE THA N THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS QUITE ELABORATIVE AND IS BASED ON A VERY WEL L REASONING. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER WHILE DELETI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT TO THE ALV OF THE PROPERT IES QUESTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THESE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. GROUNDS NO.4 & 5: 7. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8 OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED THE NETTING OF THE INTEREST INCOME & EXPENDITURE AND THEN TO CO NSIDER THE NET INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF TH E ACT. THE ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 10 PROPORTIONATE ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF HEAD OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING UNIT HAS ALSO BEEN CLAIMED. THE L EARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 7.2. 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHEREIN THE FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THA T THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN TH E ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12 TH MARCH, PASSED IN ITA NO.6364/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL, ON ID ENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AS ARE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, HAS ALLOWED THE NETTING OF INTEREST AND HAS HELD THAT T HE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST SHOULD BE MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE NET I NTEREST ONLY. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE FIGURES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY NET INTEREST IF ANY, FOR COMPUTA TION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RU LES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LEA RNED CIT (A) ALLOWING BIFURCATION OF THE EXPENSES BETWEEN THE HE AD OFFICE AND REGIONAL OFFICES AND TO RE-COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS RELATABLE TO THE HEAD OFFICE ON LY. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER NOTED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE AO ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 11 HAS FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE COMPLETING THE RE-OPENED ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ACCORDINGLY HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY T HE ALLOCATION OF THE EXPENSES AS WELL AS CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES WITH THE SAME ME THODOLOGY WHICH HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE ADOPTED IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09.EVEN, SIMILAR METHOD HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY TH E AO FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN THIS ISSUE ALSO AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ALSO STAND DISMISSED. 8. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.7282/M UM/2014 IS CONCERNED, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROU NDS, HOWEVER, ONLY GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL RELATING TO CONFIRMA TION OF DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE RENT PAID TO BOMBAY PORT TRUS T WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS FOUND TO BE EFFECTIVE. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE REQUIRE NO ADJUDICA TION. ITA NO.7101/MUM/2014 ITA NO.7282/MUM/2014 12 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE SMALLNESS OF TH E AMOUNT INVOLVED, HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DI SMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 JULY, 20 16 SD/- SD/- (G. S. PANNU) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 20 JULY, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//