DEDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE CHARGES IN COMPUTING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY

Quite often, an issue arises as to whether the assessee can claim a deduction of expenses like maintenance charges, etc., which it had to incur in relation to the property which is let out while computing its annual value for the purposes of section 23. The fact that the annual value is required to be computed on the basis of rent received or receivable in case of let-out property and no specific deduction has been provided for any expenses other than interest u/s 24, makes the issue more complex. Numerous decisions are available dealing with this issue in the context of different kind of expenses, such as maintenance charges, brokerage, non-occupancy charges, etc. For the purpose of this article, we have analysed two decisions of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal taking contrary views in relation to deductibility of maintenance charges while computing annual value u/s 23.

SHARMILA TAGORE’S CASE
The issue had earlier come up for consideration of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT (2005) 93 TTJ 483.

In this case, for the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee had claimed deduction for the maintenance charges of Rs. 48,785 and non-occupancy charges of Rs. 1,17,832 levied by the society from the total rent received of Rs. 3,95,000 while computing her income under the head Income from House Property. The A.O. disallowed the claim for deduction of both the payments on the ground that the expenses were not listed for allowance in section 24. On appeal, the disallowance made by the A.O. was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal, on appeal by the assessee, held that the maintenance charges have to be deducted while determining the annual letting value of the property u/s 23 following the ratio of the decisions in the cases of –
• Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 626 (Mum),
• Neelam Cables Mfg. Co. vs. Asstt. CIT [1997] 63 ITD 1 (Del),
• Lekh Raj Channa vs. ITO [1990] 37 TTJ (Del) 297,
• Blue Mellow Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1757 (Bom), dated 6th May, 1993].

The claim of the assessee for the deduction of maintenance charges while computing the annual value on the basis of rent received was upheld by the Tribunal. As regards the non-occupancy charges, the Tribunal noted that the expenditure had to be incurred for letting out the property. Therefore, while estimating the annual letting value of the property, which was the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, the non-occupancy charges could not be ignored and should be deducted from the annual value. Thus, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to re-compute the annual value after reducing the maintenance charges as well as non-occupancy charges from the rent received.

In the case of Neelam Cables Mfg. Co. (Supra), the assessee had claimed deduction for building repairs and security service charges. Insofar as building repair charges were concerned, the Tribunal held that no separate deduction could be allowed in respect of repairs as the assessee was already allowed the deduction of 1/6th for repairs as provided in section 24 (as it was prevailing at that time). However, in respect of security service charges, the Tribunal held that the charges would be deductible while computing the annual value u/s 23, though no such deduction was specifically provided for in section 24. Since the gross rent received by the assessee should be considered as inclusive of security service charges, the Tribunal held that such charges which were paid in respect of letting out of the property should be deducted while determining the annual value.

In the case of Lekh Raj Channa (Supra), the Tribunal allowed the deduction of salaries paid to persons for the maintenance of the building, security of the building and attending to the requirements of the tenants while computing the annual letting value.

The Tribunal in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. (Supra), following the above referred decisions of the Delhi bench and in the case of Blue Mellow Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. (Supra), had held that the expenditure by way of municipal taxes, maintenance of the building, security, common electricity charges, upkeep of lifts, water pump, fire-fighting equipment, staff salary and wages, etc., should be taken into account while arriving at the annual letting value u/s 23.

A similar view has been taken in the following cases about deductibility of expenses, mainly maintenance charges, while arriving at the annual letting value of the let-out property –
• Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2006] 5 SOT 348 (Mum),
• J.B. Patel & Co. vs. DCIT [2009] 118 ITD 556 (Ahm),
• ITO vs. Farouque D. Vevania [2008] 26 SOT 556 (Mum),
• ACIT vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2011) 139 TTJ 49 (UO),
• Asha Ashar vs. ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 441 (Mum-Trib),
• Neela Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 2829/Mum/2011 dated 27th February, 2013),
• Krishna N. Bhojwani vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1463/Mum/2012 dated 3rd July, 2017),
• Saif Ali Khan vs. CIT (ITA No. 1653/Mum/2009 dated 23rd June, 2011).

ROCKCASTLE PROPERTY (P) LTD.’S CASE
The issue again came up for consideration recently before the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rockcastle Property (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2021] 127 taxmann.com 381.

In this case, for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee had earned rental income from a commercial property which was situated in a condominium. The assessee credited an amount of Rs. 91.42 lakhs as rental income in its Profit & Loss account as against gross receipts of Rs. 93.65 lakhs after deducting Rs. 2.23 lakhs paid towards the ‘society maintenance charges’. The A.O. held that the charges were not allowable as a deduction since the assessee was already allowed deduction of 30% u/s 24(a). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by relying upon several decisions, including the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of H.G. Gupta & Sons, 149 ITR 253 and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Aravali Engineers P. Ltd. 200 Taxman 81.

On appeal to the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that under the terms of letting out, the assessee was required to bear the expenses on society maintenance and the gross rent received by the assessee included the society maintenance charges that were paid by the assessee. Therefore, in computing the annual value, the amount of rent which actually came to the hands of the owner should alone be taken into consideration in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(b) that provide for adoption of the ‘actual rent received or receivable by the owner’. Reliance was also placed on various decisions of the Tribunal taking a view that such maintenance charges should be deducted while computing the annual letting value of the let-out property. As against this, the Revenue submitted that the assessee’s claim was not admissible as per the statutory provisions.

The Tribunal perused the Leave & License agreement and noted that the payment of municipal taxes and other outgoings was the liability of the assessee. Any increase was also to be borne by the assessee. The licensee was required to pay a fixed monthly lump sum to the assessee as license fees irrespective of the assessee’s outgoings. On the above findings, the Tribunal noted that it was incorrect for the assessee to plead that the actual rent received by the assessee was net of ‘society maintenance charges’ as per the terms of the agreement.

The Tribunal further noted that section 23 provided for deduction of only specified items, i.e., taxes paid to the local authority and the amount of rent which could not be realised by the assessee, from the ‘actual rent received or receivable’. No other deductions were permissible. Allowing any other deduction would amount to distortion of the statutory provisions and such a view could not be countenanced. It observed that accepting the plea that the rent which actually went into the hands of the assessee was only to be considered, would enable the assessee to claim any expenditure from rent actually received or receivable which was not the intention of the Legislature.

As far as the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Sharmila Tagore (Supra) was concerned, the Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Township Real Estate Developers (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com 63 (Mum) wherein it was held that –
• the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of H.G. Gupta & Sons (Supra) had not been considered in the Sharmila Tagore case;
• the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd. (Supra) was the latest decision on the subject that held that the deduction was not allowable.

Apart from the cases of Rockcastle Property (P) Ltd. (Supra) and Township Real Estate Developers (India) (P) Ltd. (Supra), a similar view has been taken in the following cases whereby the expenses in the nature of maintenance of the property have not been allowed to be reduced from the gross amount of the rent for the purpose of determining the annual value of the property –
• Sterling & Wilson Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1085/Mum/2015 dated 11th November, 2016),
• Ranjeet D. Vaswani vs. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 259 (Mum-Trib), and
• ITO vs. Barodawala Properties Ltd. (2002) 83 ITD 467 (Mum).

OBSERVATIONS
What is chargeable to tax in the case of house property is its ‘annual value’ after reducing the same by the deductions allowed u/s 24. The annual value is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 23. Sub-section (1) of section 23 which is relevant for the purpose of the subject matter of controversy reads as under –

For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be –
(a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or
(b) where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable; or
(c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable:
Provided that the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property shall be deducted (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such taxes was incurred by the owner according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which such taxes are actually paid by him.
Explanation. – For the purposes of clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section, the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner shall not include, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount of rent which the owner cannot realise.

The limited issue for consideration, where the property is let, is whether ‘the actual rent received or receivable’ referred to in clause (b) in respect of letting of the property or part thereof can be said to have included the cost of maintaining that property and, if so, whether the actual rent received or receivable can be reduced, by the amount of the cost of maintaining the property, for the purposes of clause (b) of section 23(1).

One possible view of the matter is that the ‘actual rent received or receivable’ should be the amount of consideration which the tenant has agreed to pay for usage of the property and merely because the owner of the property has to incur some expenses in relation to that property, the amount of ‘actual rent received or receivable’ cannot be altered on that basis; the proviso to section 23(1) permits the deduction for taxes levied by the local authority, which is also the obligation of the owner of the property, is indicative of the intent of the Legislature that no other obligations of the owner of the property can be reduced from the amount of actual rent received or receivable; any payment or other than the taxes so specified shall not be deductible from the annual value; section 24 limits the deduction to those payments that have been expressly listed in the said section and any deduction outside the list is not allowable, as has been explained in the Circular No. 14/2001 dated 9th November, 2001 explaining the objective of the amendment of 2001 in section 24 to substitute some eight deductions like cost of repairs, collection charges, insurance premium, annual charge, ground rent, interest, land revenue, etc., with only two, namely, standard deduction and interest; any deduction other than the ones specified by the proviso to section 23(1) and section 24, i.e., municipal taxes, interest and standard deduction, is not permissible.

The other equally possible view is that the amount of ‘actual rent received or receivable’ is dependent on the fact that the let-out property in question necessarily requires the owner to bear the expenses in relation to the property as a condition for letting, expressly or otherwise, and considering this correlation, the amount of ‘actual rent received or receivable’ should be adjusted taking into consideration the cost of maintaining the property or any other such expenses in relation to the property which the owner is required to incur; the express permission to deduct the municipal taxes under the proviso should not be a bar from claiming such other payments and expenses which have the effect of reducing the net annual rent in the hands of the owner and should be allowed to be reduced form the annual value as long as there is no express prohibition in the law to do so; section 24 lists the permissible deductions in computing the income under the head ‘income from house property’ and is unrelated to the determination of annual value and should not have any role in determination thereof; the expenses that go to reduce the annual value should nonetheless be allowed as they remain unaffected by the provisions of section 24.

The obligation of the owner to incur the expenses in question is directly linked to the earning of the income and has the effect of determining the fair rental value. The value shall stand reduced where such obligations are not assumed by the owner. Needless to say, an express agreement by the parties for passing on the obligation to pay such expenses to the tenant and reducing the rent payable would achieve the desired objective without any litigation; this in itself should indicate that the fair rental value is directly linked to the assuming of the obligations by the owner to pay the expenses in question and that such expenses should be reduced from the annual value. The case for deduction is well supported on the principle of diversion of obligation by overriding covenant. The concept has been well explained by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas [(1961) 41 ITR 367] the relevant extract from which is reproduced below –

In our opinion, the true test is whether the amount sought to be deducted, in truth, never reached the assesse as his income. Obligations, no doubt, there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation which is the decisive fact. There is a difference between an amount which a person is obliged to apply out of his income and an amount which by the nature of the obligation, cannot be said to be a part of the income of the assesse. Where by the obligation income is diverted before it reaches the assesse, it is deductible; but where the income is required to be applied to discharge an obligation after the income reaches the assessee, the same consequence, in law, does not follow. It is the first kind of payment which can truly be excused and not the second. The second payment is merely an obligation to pay another a portion of one’s own income, which has been received and is since applied. The first is a case where income never reaches the assessee, who even if he were to collect it does so, not as part of his income, but for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable.

Further reference can also be made to the case of CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 wherein the Supreme Court has, after referring to various precedents on the subject, explained the concept of diversion of income by overriding title in the following manner:

When a third person becomes entitled to receive the amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could lay a claim to receive it as his income, there would be diversion of income by overriding title; but when after receipt of the income by the assessee, the same is passed on to a third person in discharge of the obligation of the assessee, it will be a case of application of income by the assessee and not of diversion of income by overriding title.

It is possible to canvass two views when the issue under consideration is examined in light of this principle; it can be said that there is no diversion of income by the owner of the property when he incurs the expenses for maintenance of the property, or it can be held that there is a diversion. The better view is to favour an interpretation that permits the reduction than the one that defeats the claim. It is also possible to support the claim for reduction from annual value on the basis of real income theory.

In the cases of Sharmila Tagore and others, the Tribunal has taken a view that allowed the reduction of maintenance charges from the annual value on the basis that to that extent the amount of rent never reached the owner or the owner was not benefited to that extent.