Smt. Jayshri Gautambhai Desai, Navsari V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Navsari

ITA 719/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 71920514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: MITESH MODI A R
• Keywords: Gift; Deemed owner of house property; Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. , ! ! ! ! ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI, GAUTAM NIVAS OPP. S. B. GAURDA COLLEGE, SAYAJI ROAD, NAVSARI - 396445 V/S . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, NAVSARI PAN NO. A A KPD0867C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) '# $ % / BY APPELLANT SHRI MITESH MODI, A.R. &''# $ % /BY RESPONDENT SHRI J. P. JHANGID, SR. D.R. () $ /DATE OF HEARING 14.03.2014 *+, $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.05.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF ASSESSEE WHICH H AS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VALSAD, DATED 31.10.2012 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ITO FOR ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 2 THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,59,000/- APPLYI NG THE NOTIONAL ANNUAL VALUE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE MUNICIPAL RETABLE VALUE AVAILABLE FOR THE RESIDENTI AL PROPERTY DEEMED TO BE LET OUT U/S. 23(4) R.W.S. 23(1) OF THE ACT. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN ADOPTING THE NOTIONA L AND IMAGINARY ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEEMED T O BE LET OUT PURELY ON ASSUMPTIONS, PRESUMPTIONS AND PURE GUESS WORK, IGNORING THE EXPLANATIONS DULY SUBSTANTIATED BY THE EVIDENCE S FURNISHED TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF MUNICIPAL RETABLE VALUE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND HENCE, THE ACTION OF BOT THE LOWER AUT HORITIES FOR SUBSTITUTING THE ANNUAL VALUE BY THE NOTIONAL ANNUA L VALUE IS BASELESS, ARBITRARY AND PERVERSE AND THEREFORE, LIA BLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN. (4) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 29,204/- ON ACCOU NT OF ALLEGED MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION THEREON. ALL THE FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REVOLVING AROUND ANNUAL VALUE OF TWO FLATS IN MUMBAI. 2. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE OWNED THREE FLAT S IN MUMBAI DETAILS AS UNDER: I. FLAT NO.3, REKHA APARTMENT, : AREA 965 SQ. FT. 46, RIDGES ROAD, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI II. FLAT NO.4, REKHA APARTMENT : AREA 306 SQ.FT . 46, RIDGES ROAD, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI III. FLAT NO.18, PARAS APARTMENT : AREA 697 SQ. FT. L.D. RUPAREL CROSS MARG B, MUMBAI ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 3 OUT OF ABOVE THREE FLATS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN T O SHOW NOTIONAL INCOME OF FLAT NOS. 3 & 4 OF REKHA APARTMENT. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAD CHOSEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN PARAS APARTMENT AS SELF OCC UPIED, A QUESTION FOR DETERMINING ANNUAL VALUE ARISES BEFORE THE A.O. FOR THOSE OTHER THAN SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTIES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 23(4) OF THE IT ACT. AS PER SECTION 23(4) WHERE THE PROPERTY OF ANY ASSESSE E CONSIST 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 HER OPTI ON, SPECIFIED THIS (B) THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE OR HOUSES, OTHER THAN HOU SE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXERCISED AN OPTION UNDER CLAUSE (A), SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AS IF SUCH HOUSE OR HOUSES HA D BEEN LET OUT. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12.11.2 009 & 02.12.2009. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD. A.O. ASSE SSED THE NOTIONAL INCOME FROM BOTH THE PROPERTIES, BY CONSIDERING FOLLOWING FACTORS: I. PROPERTY NO.1 & 2 ARE LOCATED IN MOST POSH AREA OF MUMBAI I.E. MALABAR HILLS AND PREVAILING RATE OF RENT ON 2 BED ROOM AND A KITCHEN IS RANGING BETWEEN RS.50,000/- TO RS. 1,50,000/- PER MONTH. II. MUMBAI IS CONSIDERED TO BE A MEGA CITY AND THE BUSINESS CAPITAL OF THE COUNTRY AND WHOSE RENTAL VALUE IS SECOND HIGHEST IN INDIA AFTER GURGAON AND FETCHING VALUE OF RENT IS BETWEEN RS.50,000/- & 1,5 0,000/-. ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 4 III. THE FLAT SITUATED AT 18, PARAS APARTMENT, L. D . RUPAREL CROSS MARG B, MALABAR HILLS, MUMBAI PURCHASED AT RS.1.03 CRORE. THUS, VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT SERIAL NOS. 1 & 2 ARE ALSO NOT LESS THA N RS. 1 CRORE. IV. THE ASSESSEE IS DOING DIAMOND BROKERAGE AND ALS O PARTNER IN JEWELLERY BUSINESS AND HAVING LUXURIOUS LIFE. V. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.1,51,800/- ON BORROWINGS, WHICH HAD BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. THE BORROWINGS WERE MADE FOR SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY. VI. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS DOING BUSINES S OF DIAMOND BROKERAGE IN FLAT NO.4 OF REKHA APARTMENT, MUMBAI. VII. THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERT Y, VALUE IN CRORES AND ALSO VOLUME OF BUSINESS WAS IN CRORE. THE NOTI ONAL RENT ON THE BASIS OF TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY NOS. 1 & 2 HAS BEE N WORKED OUT AT RS.95,000/- @10% ON TOTAL PRICE OF RS.9.5 LACS. 2(I). THE A.O. HAD WORKED OUT THE ANNUAL RENTAL VAL UE OF PROPERTY NO.1 AT RS.12,00,000/- AND PROPERTY NO.2 AT RS. 4,00,000/- AND SAME WAS ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALLOWED 30% DEDUCTI ON ON IT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE AP PEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE HAD NOT BEEN TAX ED IN THE CASES OF OTHER CO- OWNERS AS ASSESSEE HAS 50% SHARE IN BOTH THE PROPER TIES. THE ENTIRE RENTAL VALUE IS ASSESSED TO THIS CASE ON THE PROTECTIVE BA SIS. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT THE PREMI SES ARE SUBJECT TO ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 5 MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT AND THEY HAD NOT BEEN LET OUT, THE NOTIONAL RENT CANNOT EXCEED THE STANDARD RENT, WHICH HAS TO BE WO RKED OUT AT 10% OF THE COST OF THESE TWO FLATS. AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE IT ACT, PROVIDES THAT ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX ACT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SECTION 23(1)(A) PRO VIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 22, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHA LL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. FURTHER, SECTION 23(2) PROVIDES THAT WHERE A PROPER TY IS SELF OCCUPIED, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE TAKEN AS NIL. HOWEVER, SECTION 23(4) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE OR HOUSES, OTHER THAN THE SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE, SHALL BE DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT BY ASSUMING THAT THE SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT. THE APPELLANT HAS USED FLAT NO.18 AT PARAS CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD., MUMBAI AS SELF OCCUPIED HOUS E. THUS, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE FLAT HAD BEEN TAKEN AT NIL. AS PER MA HARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, SECTION 2(1), WHICH APPLIES TO PREMISES LET FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE IN AREAS SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE I AND II. THUS, SAID S CHEDULE IS APPLICABLE ON PROPERTY SITUATED IN GREATER BOMBAY. AS PER THIS A CT, THE RENT IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF COST OF THE PREMISES AND REASONABLE RETURN ON SUCH COST. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN C ASE OF DEWAN DAULATRAI KAPOOR VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ANOTHER 122 ITR 700 (SC), IN WHICH, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WOULD HAVE TO ARRIVE AT THE STANDARD RENT BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE RENT CONTR OL ACT FOR DETERMINATION OF ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 6 THE STANDARD RENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE BACKGROUND , THE VALUE OF DEEMED LET OUT PROPERTIES IS CONSIDERED AS PER THE ALV DETERMI NED ON THE BASIS OF STANDARD RENT. THEREFORE, HE CONSIDERED THE MARKET VALUE OF BOTH THE PROPERTIES AS ASSIGNED BY THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT OR DER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN CASE OF FLAT NO.3, REKHA APARTMENT, THE APP ELLANT GOT50% OF SHARE AS GIFT FROM THE MOTHER-IN-LAW IN THE YEAR 1997. THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THT IN SUCH CASES SECTION 49(1)(II) & SECTION 55(2)(B)(II) ARE APPLICABLE. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED A VALUATION REPORT FROM THE REGISTERED VA LUER SHOWING MARKET VALUE AT RS.10,25,795/-. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE F LAT ON THE DATE OF GIFT (1997) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING THE ALV BECAUS E THE DONOR OR THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PURCHASED THAT FLAT ON THAT DATE. WITH REGARDS TO THE FLAT NO.4 AT REKHA APARTMENT, THE LD. A.R. STATED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1992 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.9,00,000/- AND THEREFORE, 10% OF THAT VALUE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED F OR DETERMINING THE ALV. THE HOUSING SOCIETY ALSO CHARGES, WHICH HAD NOT BEE N ADDED IN THE COST OF THE FLAT. THE PROPERTIES ARE TRANSFERRED THROUGH T HE SHARES BUT ACTUALLY MONEY RECEIVED BY THE TRANSFEROR IS NEVER REFLECTED IN TH E TRANSFERRED DOCUMENTS. IT IS TRUE THAT ACTUAL MONEY RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF IMMO VABLE PROPERTY, IS MUCH MORE BUT DISCLOSED LESS. THE A.O. TOOK THE BASE VA LUE OF THE FLAT NO.18, PARAS APT. WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 2006. T HE PURCHASE RATE FOR FLAT NO.18, PARAS APT., WAS APPROXIMATELY RS.14,500/- PE R SQ. FT. IT IS NOT FAIR TO APPLY THIS RATE FOR THE YEAR 1992 & 1997. THUS, HE TOOK REASONABLE RATE PER SQ. FT. FOR THE YEAR 1992 AT RS.5,000/- AND FOR THE YEAR 1997 AT RS.10,000/-. ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 7 ACCORDINGLY, HE CALCULATED ALV ON RS.9,65,000/- AND RS.15,30,000/- @ 10% AT RS.9,65,000/- AND RS.1,53,000/- RESPECTIVELY. T HE APPELLANT HAS OWNERSHIP OF ONLY 50% AND THEREFORE, 50% ON RENT IS TAKEN AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. 4. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT APPELLANT HAD OPTED FLAT NO.18, PARAS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIET Y LTD. AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH HE FILE D NECESSARY EVIDENCE AT PAGE NO.66 OF PAPER BOOK. THE OTHER TWO FLATS BEIN G FLAT NO.3 AND ADJACENT SMALL UNIT NO.4 AT REKHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOC. LTD. H AD BEEN TREATED BY THE APPELLANT AS THE PROPERTY DEEMED TO BE LET OUT AND ACCORDINGLY, BASED UPON THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE OF RS.6,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THIS ALV OF RS.6 ,000/- OF FLAT NOS. 3 & 4 HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY SHOWN YEAR TO YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY ALL THE CO- OWNERS, WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT IN THE PAST WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT. I N SUPPORT OF THIS, A COPY OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 06-07 PASSED BY THE SAME ITO, WARD 2, NAVSARI ON 12.11.20 08 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF O NE OF THE CO-OWNERS, NAMELY, SHRI GAUTAMBHAI K. DESAI (THE APPELLANTS H USBAND) HAVE BEEN ATTACHED AT PAGE NOS. 67 TO 76 OF PAPER BOOK. IN S PITE OF THAT THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD APPLIED THE MULTIPLICATION FORMULA BASED UPON THE PROPERTY BEING FLAT NO.18 PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 2006, WHICH IS PATENTLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD. CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FLAT NO.3 ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 8 WAS RECEIVED THROUGH GIFT DEED DTD. 29.11.1997, WHI CH WAS PURCHASED BY THE OWNER, SMT. INDIRABEN K. DESAI ON 05.12.1960 FOR RS .28,000/-. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID FLAT AS ON NOVEMBER 1974 AND 01.0 4.1981 WAS RS. 1,09,200/- AND RS.10,25,795/- RESPECTIVELY FOR WHIC H A VALUATION REPORT WAS PLACED AT PAGE NO.15 TO 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT I S WELL SETTLED LAW POSITION THAT TO DETERMINE ALV AS PROVIDED U/S.23(1) OF THE ACT, THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE HAS TO BE ADOPTED MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE MUNICIPALITY OR LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS DETERMINED THE RATABLE VALUE OF THE P ROPERTY. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBA I SMC BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHAILESH I SHAH VS. ITO (IN ITA NO. 8687/MUM/2 010). ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE STANDARD RENT BE APPLIED CONSIDERING MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, W HICH PROVIDED FOR THE STANDARD @ 10% OF THE COST OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES T O DECIDE THE STANDARD RATE ON THE BASIS OF STANDARD RENT AS PER MAHARASHTRA RE NT CONTROL ACT. HE FURTHER RELIED IN CASE OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH DECISION IN CA SE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL RANGE-22 VS. SHRIPAL S. MORAK HIA [2006] 7 SOT 609 (MUM.), WHEREIN ALV WAS TAKEN AS ACTUAL RENT RS.7,000/- PER MONTH MORE THAN MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE AGAINST THE ALV DECIDE D BY THE A.O. AT RS.13,65,475/-. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO APPLY MUNICI PAL RATABLE VALUE FOR SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY. AT THE OUTSET, LD. S. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A). ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 9 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS FACT THAT HOUSE NOS.3 & 4 WERE ALTE RNATIVELY OPTED FOR DEEMED TO BE LET OUT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE BOTH IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR DETERMINING ALV. BUT APPELLANTS CONT ENTION IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, MUMBA I BENCH IN CASE OF SHRI SHAILESH I SHAH VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) AND VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT MUNICIPAL RETEABLE VALUE HAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALV. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRI BUNAL ARE TAKING THE CONSISTENT VIEW THAT IN CASE OF SELF OCCUPIED PROPE RTY, MUNICIPAL RETEABLE VALUE HAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALV. I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO CONSIDER THE MUNICIPAL RETEABLE VALUE AS ALV OF THE PROPERTY AS AGAINST RS.3 LACS ESTIMATED BY HIM. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. SIMILAR VIEW ALSO HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE MUMBAI ITAT IN CASE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL RANGE-22 VS. SHRIPAL S. MORAK HIA (SUPRA). THE LD. A.O. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED IN A.Y. 06-07 IN CASE OF HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, SHRI GAUTAMBHAI K. DESAI WHO HAS 50% SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTIES AT RS.6,000/- ALV ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. THUS, WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE ALSO, THE A .O. SHOULD ASSESS ITA NO. 719/AHD/2013, SMT. JAYSHRI GAUTAMBHAI DESAI VS. ITO A.Y. 07-08 PAGE 10 ALV ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE. ACCOR DINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16.05.2014 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA - - - - $ $$ $ &. &. &. &. /., /., /., /., / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. '# / APPELLANT 2. &''# / RESPONDENT 3. 33 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4- / CIT (A) 5. .89 &( , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;< => / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ - , ?/ 3A , !