Law:

Section:

Section 24(1)(ix) of the income-tax act, 1961-Income from house property-Deductions-AAC directed ito to recompute assessee's income after allowing deduction for vacancy allowance-Assessee challenged ITO's order allowing vacancy allowance on ground that as ITO had failed to follow statutory provisions of section 24(1)(ix), said order should be quashed and fresh recomputation be directed-Whether assessee's petition was allowable -Held, yes. Facts For the relevant assessment year, the ITO did not allow the vacancy allowance claimed by the petitioner, though the income from house property constituted one of the heads of total income of the petitioner. On appeal, the AAC directed the ITO to recompute the income under the head 'Income from house property' after allowing deduction in respect of the portion of the property, which remained vacant for part of the year during the relevant accounting period. The consequential order passed by the ITO was challenged by the assessee on writ, on the ground that the ITO had failed to follow the statutory provision as contained in section 24(1)(ix), when he carried out the AAC's directions. The revenue contended that as the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the AAC, the writ petition was not maintainable. Held The ITO, in recomputing the income from house property, had not followed the statutory provision contained in section 24(1)(ix ), in determining the vacancy allowance. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ITO was liable to be quashed and he was directed to determine the vacancy allowance afresh in accordance with law in the light of the AAC's observations. Further, as held in CTO v. Jasodalal Ghosal (P.) Ltd. [1979] 44 STC 31 (Cal.), even in a case where an alternative remedy was available by way of appeal, if, in view of the fact that a rule was issued by the Court upon entertainment of the writ petition, the said remedy became unavailable due to the bar of limitation, the relief could not be refused to the petitioner on that technical ground. Case review CTO v. Jasodalal Ghosal (P.) Ltd. [1979] 44 STC 31 (Cal.) followed. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618 (SC) relied on.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492