During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the ‘balance sheet’ of the assessee revealed investments of Rs. 3,43,36,083/- in immovable properties. On being called upon to explain that as to why the deemed rental income of the aforesaid properties may not be brought to tax under the head “Income from house property”, the assessee objected to the same. It was the claim of the assessee that the Unit No. 401 & 425 of project “Balaji Bhawan” had remained vacant for the entire year as the tenant viz. M/s Sterling Construction System Pvt. Ltd. had vacated the premises and no rent, whatsoever, had thereafter been received. The A.O found the aforesaid claim of the assessee as factually correct. It was observed by the A.O that though the assessee had let out Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan to M/s Sterling Construction P. Ltd. for 36 months, vide agreement dated April, 2007 and had offered the rental income received therefrom as its “Income from house property” in the preceding years, but after the expiry of the license period of 36 months the licensee had vacated the property and conveyed its intention of not getting the license agreement renewed any further. The assessee in order to drive home its contention that the ‘annual value’ of the property was to be taken at Nil, submitted that itscasewas covered by Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act. However, the A.O after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee did not find favour with the same. The A.O was of the view that as per Sec. 23(1)(a) of the Act, the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year was to be taken as the deemed ‘annual value’ of the property under Sec. 22 of the Act. Further, the A.O held a conviction that the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) could be pressed into service only when the property is actually let and had remained vacant for some period during the year. Thus, the A.O was of the view that as the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan was not at all let out during whole of the year under consideration, hence the provisions of Sec. 23(1)(c) would not be applicable in itscase. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O computed the ‘annual value’ of the property as per Sec. 23(1)(a) at Rs. 90,19,296/-. assessee that the ‘annual value’ of the property under consideration viz. Unit No. 401 & 425 of project Balaji Bhavan was rightly computed by it at Nil under Sec. 23(1)(c) of the Act, thus, theGrounds of appeal nos. 2 and 3wherein the quantification of the ‘annual value’ by the A.O has been assailed before us, having been rendered as infructuous are dismissed.