IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1907/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi K Sheth Deputy Commissioner of M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP , Income Tax -5(3)(1), Esplanade House, 2nd Floor, Mumbai Vs.

29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 (PAN : AAIPS7341E)

(assessee) (Respondent)

Present for:

assessee : Shri M.M. Golvala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.09.2025

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072848834(1), dated 03.02.2025 passed against the assessment order by Assessing Officer, Circle- 5(3)(1), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 16.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-

18.

2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

“1) Both the lower authorities erred in computing "Income from House Property" in respect of Flat No.12B in building called "Manek", at Rs. 19,40,400 as against Rs. 5,026 returned by the assessee.

2) Both the lower authorities erred in ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court which had already interpreted the provisions of section 23(1)(a).

3) Without prejudice to the Ground No.1 above, the income from house property determined by the Assessing Officer is highly excessive and arbitrary and the same requires to be reduced substantially.

4) Both the lower authorities erred in not following the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2011-12.

5) Both the lower authorities erred in not following the order of the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2016-17, against which orders no appeal is pending.

6) Without prejudice, both the lower authorities failed to consider that the addition, if any, could only have been made for 10 months.”

3. Assessee has raised six grounds, out of which ground No.6 is not pressed, accordingly, ground no.6 is dismissed as not pressed. All grounds from 01 to 05 relates to one sole issue of addition of Rs.19,40,400/- as deemed income from house property in respect of Flat No.12B in building called “Manek”, which according to the assessee is excessive and arbitrary and without following the precedents in the earlier years held in his favour.

4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee owns two flat in Mumbai, i.e., a) Flat No. 12B in building called "Manek"; (deemed let out)

b) Flat No. 14B in building called "Manek"

Flat no. 12B has been self-occupied by the assessee for more than 20 years. Flat No. 14B was vacant during the year under consideration, and no rent has been received nor has any income accrued to the assessee. In respect of the said flat, exemption was claimed u/s. 23(4). Assessee had gifted Flat No. 12B to his son in January 2017 under a registered Gift Deed dated 30.01.2017. Assessee inadvertently omitted to compute the deemed let out rent in respect of Flat 12B for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.01.2017.

4.1. During the course of the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 15.10.2019 asking the assessee to show cause as to why market rent should not be considered as deemed rent in respect of Flat 12B as has been done in Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17. On receipt of the notice the assessee realised his inadvertent error and requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 09.12.2019 to consider the deemed rent of Flat No. 12B on the basis of the Municipal Rateable Value for which he furnished as per the certificate issued by the Co operative Society and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and to treat the Return of Income as amended to that extent. Copies of these documents are placed in the pap