High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) & Ors.
Sections 23, 260A
Asst. Year 1991-92
D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 87, 88 & 91 of 2001 and 24, 30, 31, 240 & 262 of 2002
20th November, 2002
Counsel Appeared
R.C. Pandey with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : D.N. Sawhney with M.P. Rastogi, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
D.K. JAIN, J. :
These eight appeals by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), are directed against the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal for short), in ITA Nos. 1209/Del/1996, dt. 19th Dec., 2001; 6089/ (Del)/1995 and 6090/(Del)/1995, dt. 2nd Aug., 2000; 6088/Del/1995, dt. 30th Nov., 2000; 3152/Del/1995, 3153/Del/1995 and 3154/Del/1995, dt. 15th June, 2001; 1207/Del/1996 and 1208/Del/1996 dt. 3rd Dec., 2001. Although the impugned orders have been passed on different dates but in view of the fact that the assessees are members of the same family and an identical issue has been raised in all these appeals, for the sake of convenience, these are taken up together and this order will govern all these appeals. However, we shall treat the facts of ITA No. 31 of 2002 as illustrative. The material facts, as emerging from the Tribunal’s order are that the assessee, like the other two assessees, is an HUF, owning 1/5th share in the house property bearing No. 25, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. During the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1991-92, the AO felt that the rental income declared by the assessee in respect of their portion did not reflect the fair annual letting value (ALV) of the property within the meaning of s. 23(b) of the Act. He, therefore, referred the matter of valuation to the Valuation Officer under s. 131(1)(d) of the At. As against the ALV of Rs. 60,000 declared by the assessee in respect of the ground floor of the property let out to M/s S.R.F. Ltd., the Valuation Officer determined the ALV of the property at Rs. 15,42,400. However, while completing assessment, the AO after making certain adjustments therein on account of unearned increase payable to the Government computed the ALV of assessee’s 1/5th share at Rs. 12,22,579 and framed the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide his order dt. 6th Jan., 1995, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1991-92, remanded the matter back to the AO with the following direction : “20. The AO is directed to redetermine the annual value of the property in accordance with my findings, he will limit the same to the higher of the following (a) the municipal valuation, (b) the fair rent determinable under the Rent Control Act, and (c) the actual rent paid (sic) by the assessee. This direction I feel fairly and reasonably gives effect to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the subject from time to time.”
Being not satisfied with the said direction, the Revenue took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal has affirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). Hence, the present appeals. As many as nine questions, stated to be substantial questions of law have been formulated in the appeal memo but for the sake of brevity we do not propose to reproduce them here. We have heard Mr. R.C. Pandey, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. D.N. Sawhney, learned counsel for the respondent. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Pandey that while directing the AO to redetermine the annual letting value of the property under s. 23(b) of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short CIT(A)] and the Tribunal have lost sight of the amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, w.e.f. 1st Dec., 1988. He would thus, urge that both the appellate authorities having failed to take into consideration a vital factor, their order involves substantial question of law. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal, would submit that from the afore-extracted direction of the CIT(A), it is evident that the issue raised by the Revenue is without any basis. We find substance in the stand of learned counsel for the assessee. A bare reading of the afore-extracted directions, leaves no room for any doubt that what is required to be taken into consideration by the AO is the rent control legislation, as in vogue at the end of the relevant previous year. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that since the appellate authorities have not referred to the amendment in the said Act, it may be lost sight of by the AO. In our opinion the direction given by the CIT(A), affirmed by the Tribunal is very specific and unambiguous. No fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal on that score. Rather the entire gamut of determination of ALV would be open before the AO in terms of the appellate orders. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference under the limited scope of appeal under s. 260A of the Act. In our opinion, no question of law much less a substantial question arises from the orders of the Tribunal. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 261 ITR 632]
