Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Where the Rent Control Act is applicable then actual rent received is to be taken as annual value of the property subject to verify all record and books

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the amount mentioned in the grounds is not correct and the correct amount is Rs. 25,70,208/- instead of Rs. 72,96,230/-. The ld DR has accepted this factual mistake in the ground. Accordingly, we proceed with the hearing by taking the amount in dispute is only Rs.25,70,208/-. The assessee claimed the income from the North Stand property at Rs. 1,78,275/- as income from house property. The Assessing Officer has observed that the rental income from the property in question shown by the assessee is not the fair rent. The Assessing Officer computed the fair rent of the property in question at Rs. 38,50,000/-. On appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT (A) that the assessee received Rs. 1,72,275/- from letting out of offices and shops located at North Stand. It was further contended that the rent received by the assessee from the tenant was standard rent as governed by the Rent Control Act and relied upon the various decision of the Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunal. The CIT(A) has held that the estimate made by the Assessing Officer as annual rent at Rs. 38,50,000/- is not as per the provisions of the Act and the same is arbitrary. The CIT (A) has further observed that wherever the Rent Control Act is applicable then the actual rent received has to be taken as annual value of the property. Accordingly, the CIT (A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer as income from house property.

Citation :
The Dy Commr of Income Tax 1(1), Mumbai - 20 (Applicant) Vs M/s Cricket Club of India Ltd Brabourne Stadium Dinshaw Vaccha Road Mumbai 20 (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI ‘C ‘BENCH

MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM

ITA No. 5260/Mum/2010

(Asst Year 2006-07)

The Dy Commr of Income Tax

1(1), Mumbai - 20

(Applicant)

Vs

 M/s Cricket Club of India Ltd

Brabourne Stadium

Dinshaw Vaccha Road

Mumbai 20

 (Respondent)

PAN No. AAATT4337R

Assessee by: Shri Sunil Nahfa

Revenue by: Shri Ajay

Date of hearing: 8th Feb 2012

Date of pronouncement: 12th, March, 2012

ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM

This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 15.2.2010 of the CIT (A) for the AY 2006-07.

2. The revenue has raised the following effective grounds in this appeal:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,96,230/( correct amount is Rs. 25,70,208/-) made under the head ‘income from house property’.

3. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the amount mentioned in the grounds is not correct and the correct amount is Rs. 25,70,208/- instead of Rs. 72,96,230/-. The ld DR has accepted this factual mistake in the ground.  Accordingly, we proceed with the hearing by taking the amount in dispute is only Rs.25,70,208/-.

4. The assessee claimed the income from the North Stand property at Rs. 1,78,275/- as income from house property. The Assessing Officer has observed that the rental income from the property in question shown by the assessee is not the fair rent. The Assessing Officer computed the fair rent of the property in question at Rs. 38,50,000/-.

4.1 On appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT (A) that the assessee received Rs. 1,72,275/- from letting out of offices and shops located at North Stand. It was further contended that the rent received by the assessee from the tenant was standard rent as governed by the Rent Control Act and relied upon the various decision of the Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunal. The CIT(A) has held that the estimate made by the Assessing Officer as annual rent at Rs. 38,50,000/- is not as per the provisions of the Act and the same is arbitrary. The CIT (A) has further observed that wherever the Rent Control Act is applicable then the actual rent received has to be taken as annual value of the property. Accordingly, the CIT (A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer as income from house property.

5. We have heard the ld DR as well as the ld AR of the assessee and considered the relevant material on record. The ld AR has submitted that the actual rent received by the assessee is not more than the standard rent of the property in question as per Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. He has filed the paper book containing 32 pages and submitted that the documents at Sl nos. 3 to 8 of the paper book were not before the lower authorities. The assessee has accordingly filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules 1963. All these documents are pertaining to the computation of the income from house property including the rent received and increased as per the terms of the agreement and as per the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Since all these documents including the lease rent/license agreement are material and relevant evidences for deciding the issue but the same have not been examined by the lower authorities; therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue to the record of the Assessing Officer to verify and examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and then decide the issue in accordance with law.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on this 12th, day of Mar 2012

                                                  Sd/                             Sd/-

                                 (RAJENDRA SINGH)  (VIJAY PAL RAO)

                                   Accountant Member        Judicial Member

Place: Mumbai:Dated:12th, Mar 2012

Raj*

Copy forwarded to:

1 Appellant

2 Respondent

3 CIT

4 CIT(A)

5 DR

/TRUE COPY/

BY ORDER

Dy /AR, ITAT, Mumbai

 

CS Bijoy
on 20 March 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 2341
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags