COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PRADEEPKUMAR M SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS income-tax reference has been sent up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the. I.T. Act, at the instance of the revenue. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1969-70. The assessee is the owner of a property consisting of several rooms and godowns. During the period prior to the assessment year, the godowns and rooms were let out to different persons. But during the accounting year they were vacant except two rooms which had been let out to two firms in which the assessee is interested. In the original assessment, the assessee returned an income from this property of Rs. 3,620 after deducting the vacancy allowance. THIS was accepted and the original assessment was completed on that basis. Subsequently, the officer reopened the assessment under Section 147(b). In the reassessment proceedings he included an annual letting value of the part of the property which was vacant throughout the year. The income on such basis was computed to be Rs, 24,053. He held that no vacancy allowance was to be given in respect of the property which was vacant throughout the year. The AAC confirmed this order of the ITO, On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee was entitled to vacancy allowance. It found that the part of the property had been vacant throughout the year and this would suffice to entitle the assessee to the vacancy allowance. The Tribunal had taken a similar view on an earlier occasion in Raja Timbers (I.T.A. No. 483 (Coch)/74-75 dated 29-4-76). Following the said decision of the Tribunal, it adopted the same view in the instant case. It has sent up the following question of law for our opinion, viz.:

(2.) THE question referred has to be decided in the light of Section 24(1)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961. THE said section reads ;

(3.) WE see no reason for not giving effect to the plain and direct language employed in Section 24(1)(ix) of the Act.