NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. ANIL KUMAR KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) challenges an order dated 7.12.2004 passed by Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi in House Tax Appeal No. 375 of 2004. By the impugned judgment the learned ADJ allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein against an assessment order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the Assessing Officer re -fixing the rateable value in respect of the property at 9, Jor Bagh, Delhi retrospectively from 1.6.1995 at Rs. 5,15,000 and from 1.9.2002 at Rs. 26,55,500.

(2.) THE Respondent is the sole owner of the property in question. Beginning 1.6.1995 the Respondent permitted Bharti Cellular Ltd. to install a cellular antenna on the terrace of the Annexe to the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 36,000. The petitioner claims that the respondent failed to disclose this information in response to a notices issued to him under Section 77 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act 1994 ('NDMC Act') for the assessment years 1998 -99 and also 1999 -2000. In reply to both these letters the petitioner disclosed that the property was a self -occupied property and that there has been no addition or alteration in the property. On 2.8.2000 the petitioner was issued a letter which stated that it had been noticed that a cellular antenna had been installed on the rooftop of the house and the respondent was asked to intimate the monthly rent being charged from the company. In response to this letter on 20.9.2000 the respondent stated that 'there is antenna installed on part of the terrace of the servant quarter by M/s Bharti Cellular Limited who are paying a sum of Rs. 36,000 per month towards the license fee'. Thereafter in the self -assessment form filed on 31.10.2000 the respondent indicated that the tenant from 1.6.1995 was Bharti Cellular Ltd. and from 1.9.2002 the World Health Organisation. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer (AO) revised the rateable value retrospectively as indicated in para 1 hereinabove.

(3.) THE learned ADJ held that the requirement of giving a prior notice under Section 72(2) of the Act could not be dispensed with. On the analogy of the provisio to Section 72, the learned ADJ held that the self -assessment proforma filed under Section 77 of the Act 'is not to relate to the period prior to the period for the purposes of which the return has been filed'.