For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The fact that the assessee is a co–owner of a residential flat, a part of which is given out on rent, has not been disputed. It is evident, the assessee had shown the annual value of the property at Rs. 30,000 per annum and has supported it through a valuation made by the Municipal Authority who determined the ALV at Rs. 79,380 per annum. Undisputedly, the valuation by the Municipal Authorities was furnished before the Assessing Officer as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is apparent on record, neither the Assessing Officer nor learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the valuation made by the Municipal Authorities. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer has referred to the ALV of some other properties rented out in the nearby locality. Objecting to this, the contention of the assessee is, the comparable cases of property rented out as considered by the Assessing Officer are commercial properties rented out to Banks. Whereas, in assessee's case it is a residential house and a part of which is rented out. On a perusal of the material on record, we find that neither the Assessing Officer nor learned Commissioner (Appeals) has made any enquiry with the Municipal Authorities or any other Government agencies to find out the market rent of assessee's property. Without making any such enquiry, the valuation of Municipal Authorities furnished by the assessee could not have been rejected, that too, without considering assessee's claim that the comparable cases referred to by the Assessing Officer are not at all comparable since they are commercial properties. Moreover, the determination of ALV @ Rs. 1,00,000, per month by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is without any basis and is on a pure estimation. Therefore, when the assessee had furnished a valuation from the Municipal Authorities determining the ALV at Rs. 79,380, the same could not have been rejected without valid and cogent reasoning. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to accept assessee's claim that ALV of the property has to be determined at Rs. 79,380, as per the valuation of Municipal Authorities and thereafter assessee's share shall be determined for addition under the head income from house property.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 22 & 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Income From House Property—Comparable cases referred by AO are not comparable since they are commercial properties as in assessee's case it is a residential house, thus, Valuation of Municipal Authorities furnished by assessee should be adopted

Facts: The grounds raised by assessee are on the issue of addition made on account of enhancement of annual letting value (ALV) of the house property.

Held, that valuation by the Municipal Authorities was furnished before the AO as well as Commissioner (A). It is apparent on record, neither the AO nor Commissioner (A) has accepted the valuation made by the Municipal Authorities. On the contrary, AO has referred to the ALV of some other properties rented out in the nearby locality. Objecting to this, the contention of the assessee is, the comparable cases of property rented out as considered by the Assessing Officer are commercial properties rented out to Banks. Whereas, in assessee's case it is a residential house and a part of which is rented out. On a perusal of the material on record, it was found that neither the AO nor Commissioner (A) has made any enquiry with the Municipal Authorities or any other Government agencies to find out the market rent of assessee's property. Without making any such enquiry, the valuation of Municipal Authorities furnished by the assessee could not have been rejected, that too, without considering assessee's claim that the comparable cases referred to by AO are not at all comparable since they are commercial properties. Moreover, the determination of ALV @ Rs. 1,00,000, per month by Commissioner (A) is without any basis and is on a pure estimation. Therefore, when the assessee had furnished a valuation from the Municipal Authorities determining the ALV at Rs. 79,380, the same could not have been rejected without valid and cogent reasoning. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to accept assessee's claim that ALV of the property has to be determined at Rs. 79,380, as per the valuation of Municipal Authorities and thereafter assessee's share shall be determined for addition under the head income from house property. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. - SANJAY BRAHMDEV KAPOOR V/s ASSTT. CIT - [2020] 182 ITD 243 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

The fact that the assessee is a co–owner of a residential flat, a part of which is given out on rent, has not been disputed. It is evident, the assessee had shown the annual value of the property at Rs. 30,000 per annum and has supported it through a valuation made by the Municipal Authority who determined the ALV at Rs. 79,380 per annum. Undisputedly, the valuation by the Municipal Authorities was furnished before the Assessing Officer as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals). It is apparent on record, neither the Assessing Officer nor learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the valuation made by the Municipal Authorities. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer has referred to the ALV of some other properties rented out in the nearby locality. Objecting to this, the contention of the assessee is, the comparable cases of property rented out as considered by the Assessing Officer are commercial properties rented out to Banks. Whereas, in assessee's case it is a residential house and a part of which is rented out. On a perusal of the material on record, we find that neither the Assessing Officer nor learned Commissioner (Appeals) has made any enquiry with the Municipal Authorities or any other Government agencies to find out the market rent of assessee's property. Without making any such enquiry, the valuation of Municipal Authorities furnished by the assessee could not have been rejected, that too, without considering assessee's claim that the comparable cases referred to by the Assessing Officer are not at all comparable since they are commercial properties. Moreover, the determination of ALV @ Rs. 1,00,000, per month by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is without any basis and is on a pure estimation. Therefore, when the assessee had furnished a valuation from the Municipal Authorities determining the ALV at Rs. 79,380, the same could not have been rejected without valid and cogent reasoning. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to accept assessee's claim that ALV of the property has to be determined at Rs. 79,380, as per the valuation of Municipal Authorities and thereafter assessee's share shall be determined for addition under the head income from house property.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Facts: The grounds raised by assessee are on the issue of addition made on account of enhancement of annual letting value (ALV) of the house property.