Section 23 – While computing annual value of the property, municipal taxes of the property are to be deducted even though a part of the property has been let out.
FACTS The assessee was owner of a commercial tower known as “Blue Wave”. The said property consisted of 8 floors of which 3 were let out to three different persons under different leave and license agreements. The assessee had shown rental income of Rs. 3,22,73,900 on letting of these floors. The municipal tax levied by the local authority in respect of the building was Rs. 1,10,30,098 which was paid by the assessee during the previous year. The assessee had recovered from tenants Rs. 55,77,635 towards municipal taxes. While computing the annual value the assessee deducted Rs. 54,22,365 (Rs. 1,10,30,098 minus Rs. 55,77,635 recovered from tenants and Rs. 30,098 being municipal tax not paid during the year).
The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that while only 3 floors were let out, property tax in respect of the entire building was claimed as a deduction. The AO asked the assessee to show cause why proportionate property tax attributable to the portion not let out should not be disallowed. The assessee submitted that all the floors of the building collectively constituted one single building and hence theory of slicing or proportion is not at all warranted and requested that the deduction claimed be allowed. The assessee, without prejudice to its contention that property tax of the entire building is allowable, submitted working showing property tax attributable to each floor in the building.
The AO noted that the assessee has entered into 3 different agreements with 3 different parties and the license fees is different in respect of each of the floors let out and also because assessee has rented the office premises by slicing it into different floors to different parties, property tax in respect of floors lying vacant cannot be claimed against floors let out. He held that the working filed by the assessee was not proper. Therefore, he held property tax allowable to be 3/8th of the property tax of the entire building. He disallowed the claim of property tax to the extent of Rs. 33,88,879.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who held that the proportionate disallowance has to be worked out as per details of municipal tax actually levied in respect of each of the floors. He directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 10,12,604 in place of Rs. 33,88,979.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), both the parties preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
HELD
The Tribunal observed that a perusal of provisions of section 23 show that while determining the annual letting value of the property, the fact as to whether it is wholly let or partially let is to be considered. However, proviso to section 23 of the Act provides for deduction of taxes levied by any local authority “in respect of the property” shall be deducted in determining the annual value of the property of that previous year in which taxes are “actually paid”. It noted that the reference is to “the property” and not to “whole or any part of the property”. It also noticed that the municipal taxes have to be deducted in the year of payment, even though, it may relate to any of the years. Thus, the importance is given to the “year of payment”, whether or not it pertains to the year in which the property income is assessed.It observed that even though the provisions of section 23(b) and 23(c) make a reference to “any part of property”, yet what is relevant is whether the amount of actual rent received or receivable by the owner is in excess of the sum referred to in section 23(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the question of apportionment of rent / municipal taxes may arise only if it is shown that each floor of the property is a distinct and separate property which it observed was not the case in the facts before it. The copies of municipal tax receipts showed that BMC had given a single number to the impugned property and hence BMC also was considering the entire building as a single property. The Tribunal found merit in the contention of the assessee and held that the authorities were not justified in making proportionate disallowance of municipal taxes actually paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
