DC.CC. 47, MUMBAI v. SHRI. SUDHIR BEHL, MUMBAI

ITA 2162/MUM/2009 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 216219914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAMPB8549F
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2162/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant DC.CC. 47, MUMBAI
Respondent SHRI. SUDHIR BEHL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 18-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 02-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 02-11-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 06-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1. 2162/MUM/2009 1999-2000. 2. 2163/MUM/2009 2000-20 01. 3. 2164/MUM/2009 2001-2002. 4. 2 165/MUM/2009 2002-2003. 5. 2 166/MUM/2009 2005-2006. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHRI SUDHIR BEHL CENTRAL CIRCLE-47 MUMBAI. VS. KYBHER RESTAURANT 145 M.G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI 400 00 1. PAN AAMPB8549F. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHR I O.A. MAO. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAM. DATE OF H EARING : 02-11-2011. DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT : 18-11-2011. O R D E R PER BENCH : OUT OF THESE FIVE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE FOUR APPEALS BEING ITA NOS. 2162 TO 2165/MUM/2009 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL-III MUMBAI DATED 19- 01-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 WHEREAS THE REMAINING APPEAL B EING ITA NO. 2 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. 2166/MUM/2009 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL-III MUMBAI DATED 30-0-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMMON THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L. HE IS THE OWNER OF HOUSE PROPERTY BEARING FLAT NO. 91-B IN MAKER TOWERS A & B COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES CUFF PARED MUMBAI. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 THE SAID PROPERTY WAS L ET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON (I) SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.23 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED A DEPOSIT OF RS.2.24 CRORES FROM THE SAID TENANT. THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PROPERTY W AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 99-2000 TO 2002-03 WHICH WAS INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY THE AO U/S 143(1). THEREAFTER HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 AND IN THE RE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 143(3)/147 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY WAS DETERMINED BY HIM BY ADOPTING THE ALV OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS. 4 80 000/- I.E. RS.40 000/- PER MONTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03. TH E ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/147 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 WERE SET ASIDE BY THE LEARNED CIT CENTRAL-IV VIDE HIS ORDERS PASSED U/S 263 ON 28-03-2007 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO DETERMINE THE ALV OF THE ASS ESSEES PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A). MEANWHILE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/147 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 CAME TO BE DISPOSED OF B Y THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL-III MUMBAI VIDE AN ORDER DATED 30-04-2007 WHEREIN HE DIRECTED THE AO TO TAKE THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AT RS.28 000/- PER MONTH AS AGAINST RS.23 000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS.40 000/- T AKEN BY THE AO. DURING THE 3 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WI TH SECTION 263 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 30-04-2007 WHEREIN THE A LV OF THE PROPERTY WAS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AT RS.28 000/- PER MONTH. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID VALUATION AND PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE ALV O F THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) AS PER THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT IN HIS ORDERS PASSED U/S 263. IN THIS CONNECTION HE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION NOTIONAL INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM ON THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2.24 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TE NANT AND ADDING THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE T HE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY WAS TAKEN BY HIM AT RS.2 50 000/- PER MONTH IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03. FOLLOWING THE SAID ASSESSMENTS THE ALV OF THE ASSE SSEES PROPERTY WAS TAKEN BY THE AO AT RS.30 LAKHS I.E. RS.2 50 000/- PER MONTH EVEN IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS AGAI NST RS.1 80 000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF RENT OF RS.15 000/- PE R MONTH RECEIVED FROM THE NEW TENANT M/S ABN AMRO BANK NV WHO HAD GIVEN A DEPOSIT OF RS.2.5 CRORES. 3. AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 AND FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 U/S 143(3) APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). WHILE DISPOSING OF THE SAID APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19-01-2009 THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WAS D ECIDED BY HIS PREDECESSOR VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30-04-2007 WHILE DISPOSIN G OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 14 3(3)/147 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 IN PARAGRAPH NO. 2.6 TO 2.9 AS UNDER : 4 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. 2.6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECO RD BY THE AO AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THA T PROPERTY INCOME IS ASSESSED ON A NOTIONAL BASIS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ANNUAL V ALUE WHICH IS DEFINED AS THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR THE RENT ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR RECEI VABLE WHIHEVER IS HIGHER. IT IS ALSO SETTLED LAW THAT THE OWNER OF HOUSE PROPERT Y IS LIABLE TO THE TAXED ON THE ANNUAL VALUE AND NOT THE ACTUAL INCOME ARISIN G THERE FROM WHETHER IT HAS BEEN LET OUT OR NOT. IT IS IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE SETTLED LAW THAT THE DETERMINATION OF RENTAL INCOME BY THE AC IS EXA MINED BELOW. 2.7 ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SE EN THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME TO BE RS.40 000/-. THE AC HOWEVER HAD AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM RENT FETCHED BY SIMILAR FLATS IN THE SAME BUILDING TOGETHER WITH DEPOSITS AND THEREFORE HE SHOULD HA VE MADE A COMPARISON OF THE RENT RECEIVED WITH THE DEPOSIT TAKEN BY OTHER PARTIES VIS-A-VIS THE APPELLANT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE ADEQUACY OR OTH ERWISE OF RENTAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE RELEVANT CALCULATION IN TABULAR FORM IS REPRODUCE BELOW :- SR. NO. DATE OF AGREEMENT NAME OF LESSOR NAME OF LESSEE MONTHLY RENT (RS.) SECURITY DEPOSIT CALCULATION OF RENT OF APPELLANT ON CONSIDERING COMPARATIVE SECURITY DEPOSITS. 1 13.03.97 APPELLANT CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTAN LTD. 23 000 2.24 CRORES. 01.01.80 BHARAT ENTERPRISES CONSULATE GENERAL OF EGYPT. 15 000 50 LACS RS.3348/- 2 13.03.00 APPELLANT CREDIT SUISSE 23 000 2.24 CRORES 5 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. FIRST BOSTON LTD. 01.01.99 BHARAT ENTERPRISES CONSULATE GENERAL OF ARAB REPUBLIC EGYSPT 55 000 1 CRORE RS.24554 3 13.03.97 APPELLANT CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON LTD. 23 000 2.24 CRORES 1997 POONAM K. ROHIRA & GAURI KAPOOR. PEREGRINE CAPIAL INDIA P. LTD. 25 000 2.50 CRORES RS.27902 4 13.03.00 APPELLANT CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON LTD. 23 000 2.24 CRORES 21.07.03 POONAM K. ROHIRA & GAURI KAPOOR. HEINZ INDIA PVT. LTD. 40 000 2 CRORES RS.35714/- EACH CASE IS EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR OF AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT TAKEN. IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISES AT SL.NO.1 NOT ONLY IS THE YEAR OF AGREEMENT MUCH EARLIER THAN THE APPELLANTS BUT EVEN THE DEPOSIT RECEIVED IS MUCH LESS AND THEREFORE I T IS NOT A COMPARABLE CASE. IN SL.NO.2 AGAIN IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHARAT ENTERP RISES THERE IS A GAP OF ONE YEAR IN THE AGREEMENTS AND THE RENT FETCHED IS HIGH ER AT RS.29 554/- BUT THE DEPOSIT IS MUCH LESS AT RS. 1 CRORES. IN THE CASE O F MRS. POONAM K. ROHIRA AND GAURI KAPOOR (AT SI. NO.3) THE YEAR OF AGREEME NT IS THE SAME AND THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IS ALSO ALMOST THE SAME AND IN TH IS CASE THE RENT FETCHED IS 6 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. RS.27 902/-. VIDE SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT DATED 21.03. 2003 IN THE CASE OF MRS. POONAM K. ROHIRA AND GAURI KAPOOR (AT SI. NO. 4) ON A SMALLER DEPOSIT OF RS.2 CRORES RENT WAS FIXED AT RS.40 000 /-. HOWEVER THERE IS A WIDE GAP IN THE DATE OF AGREEMENTS IN THIS CASE. IT IS THEREFORE THE CASE AT SL.NO.3 WHICH IS THE CLOSEST TO THE APPELLANTS WHE RE THE DEPOSIT TAKEN IS RS. 2.5 CRORES AND RENT RECEIVED IS RS. 27 902/- PER MO NTH AGAINST DEPOSIT TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.2.24 CRORES AND RENT OF RS. 23 000/- PER MONTH. 2.8 IT IS PERTINENT HERE TO MAKE A BRIEF MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CHEM MECH PVT. LTD. SUPRA (AND ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH THE AC HAS DETERMINED THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE AT RS. 2.5 LACS PER MONTH IN A.YRS. 1997- 98 & 2003-2004) HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAILED BY ME IN MY APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-2004. IN THAT CASE THE ITAT MUMBAI H AD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NOTIONA L INTEREST IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE ALV ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT T HAT THE AC HAD FOUND THAT INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS WAS TAKEN IN A CIRCUITOUS MA NNER FOR PURPOSES OF TAX PLANNING. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HOWEVER IT IS ON THE BASIS OF AN ARMS LENGTH AGREEMENT WITH A THIRD PARTY THAT THE DEPOSI T WAS TAKEN AND RENT RECEIVED AND THERE IS NOT EVEN A HINT IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE FOR TAX PLANNING. THEREFORE IT H AS BEEN HELD BY ME IN MY APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-2004 THAT FACTS BEING C LEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CHEM MECH PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE I THE APPELLANTS CASE. 2.9 THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS THE ASCERTA INMENT OF THE CORRECT ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ALV OF TH E PROPERTY IS TO DEEMED AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE E XPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR 1-N VAR. THE ALV THUS ALTHOUGH A DEEMED FIGURE IS NOT ISOLATED FROM THE PREVAILING MARKET RENT. THAT BEING SO THE ESTIMATI ON OF ANNUAL VALUE AT A ROUND FIGURE OF RS.28 000/- ON THE BASIS OF RENT FE TCHED IN A FLAT OF SIMILAR AREA IN THE SAME BUILDING (BY THE PARTY AT SLN0.3 O F THE TABLE) GIVES A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE PREVAILING MARKET RENT THAN EITHER RS.23 000/- P.M. SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT OR RS.2 50 000/- PER MONTH D ETERMINED BY THE AC IN A.YRS. 1998-99 AND 2003-2004 IN RESPECT OF THE PRO PERTY IN QUESTION. THE 7 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO TAKE THE ANNUAL LETTIN G VALUE OF THE FLAT AT RS.28 000/- PER MONTH. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR DATED 30-04- 2007 (SUPRA) PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE AO TO TAKE THE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AT RS.28 000/- PER MONTH AS AGAINST RS.23 000/- PER MONTH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-200 0 TO 2002-03 AS AGAINST RS.23 000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS.2 50 000/- ADOPTED BY THE AO. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30-01-2009 THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS) HOWEVER DIRECTED THE AO TO TAKE THE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY O N THE BASIS OF RENT OF RS.15 000/- PER MONTH ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE SINCE THE SAME WAS MORE THAN THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE RS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE REV ENUE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE CITED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH ESE APPEALS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STAND. IT IS HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT IN THE DECISION RECENTLY DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MONI KUMAR SUBBA 333 ITR 38 (DE L.) THE FULL BENCH OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED A SIMILAR ISSUE AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE MATTER INCLUDING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELEVANT THERETO. AS HELD B Y THE FULL BENCH OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MONI KUMAR SUBBA (S UPRA) THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE TAK EN AS DETERMINATIVE FACTOR TO ARRIVE AT THE FAIR RENT AND SECTION 23(1)(A) DOES N OT MANDATE THIS. IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 23(1)(A) REQUIRES DETERMINATION OF THE FAI R RENT BEING THE SUM FOR 8 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLE BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE AO HAS TO MAKE ENQUIRY AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE POS SIBLE RENT THAT THE PROPERTY MIGHT FETCH. IT WAS HELD THAT THE AO CAN IGNORE THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION FOR DETERMINING THE ALV IF HE FINDS THAT THE SAME IS NO T BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR RENT IN THE MARKET AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VALUATION. IN THE PRESENT CA SE ALTHOUGH SUCH RELEVANT MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF COMPARABLE INSTANCES OF RENT IN THE SIMILAR LOCALITY WAS COLLECTED BY THE AO BY MAKING THE ENQUIRIES HE PROCEEDED TO ADO PT THE FAIR RENT OF ASSESSEES PROPERTY AT RS.2 50 000/- PER MONTH BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION MAINLY THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT WHIC H IN OUR OPINION WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MONI KUMAR SUBBA (SUPRA). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THE OTHER HAND EXAMINED THE MATERIAL GATHERED B Y THE AO IN THE FORM OF COMPARABLE INSTANCES AND FOUND ON SUCH EXAMINATION THAT ONE OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES NAMELY POONAM K. ROHIRA AND GAURI KAPOO WA S THE CLOSEST TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID CASE DEPOSIT TAKEN WAS R S.2.5 CRORES AND RENT RECEIVED WAS RS.27 902/- PER MONTH AS AGAINST DEPOSIT OF RS. 2.24 CRORES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND RENT OF RS.23 000/- PER MONTH. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID COMPARABLE CASE THE FAIR RENT OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AT RS.28 000/- PER MONTH FOR ASSESSMEN T YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002- 03 WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MO NI KUMAR SUBBA (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR DATED 30-04 -2007 TO DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 ON THE BASIS OF FAIR RENT OF RS.28 000/- PER MONTH AS AGAINST RS.23 000/- SHOWN BY THE 9 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. ASSESSEE AND RS.2 50 000/- TAKEN BY THE AO. THE APP EALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 ARE ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. 5. IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS CONCERNE D IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HOWEVER HAS TAKEN A DIFFEREN T STAND BY DIRECTING THE AO TO DETERMINE THE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF RENT OF RS.15 000/- PER MONTH ACTUALLY RECEIVED. AS ALREADY HELD BY US WHILE DISPOSING OF THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 THE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY WAS CORRECTLY DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY TAKING FAIR RENT OF RS.28 000/- PER MONTH ON THE BA SIS OF MATERIAL GATHERED BY THE AO IN THE FORM OF COMPARABLE INSTANCES OF RENT RECE IVED FOR THE SIMILAR PROPERTY IN THE SAME LOCALITY. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION RENDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 WE MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND DIRECT THE AO TO DETERM INE THE ALV OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY BY TAKING THE FAIR RENT AT RS.28 000/- PER MONTH. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03 ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOV. 2011. SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) ( P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 18 TH NOV. 2011. WAKODE 10 ITA NOS.2162 TO 2166/MUM/2009. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR I-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGI STRAR ITAT MUMBAI BEN CHES MUMBAI