Judgment of jurisdictional High Court not binding if there is a later contrary judgment of non-jurisdictional HC

One thing is apparent that divergent view have been expressed by the Hon’ble Courts what is to be charged u/s.22 of the IT Act is the annual value of the property, irrespective of the fact whether or not any income is either actually received or accrued to the assessee. Since, the Hon’ble High Courts have expressed different views, therefore, we have to apply a thumb rule in respect of the applicability of the precedents cited.

A thumb rule is that a latest decision of the Hon’ble High Court is required to be followed to maintain the judicial discipline. We have noted the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court pronounced in the case of Prodip Kumar Bothra, 244 CTR 366 (Calcutta) is dated 15^th July, 2011 wherein the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court pronounced in the case of Rasiklal Balabhai (supra) was dissented from. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has followed the decision of Karnataka High Court and several other decisions and thereafter came to the conclusion that the assessee cannot pray for exclusion of the income of the property occupied by a partnership firm. The Hon’ble Court has expressed the view in favor of the Revenue and held that by operation of Section 22 of IT Act income from house property is chargeable in the hands of the assessee. Resultantly, the view expressed by the Revenue Authorities is hereby affirmed and this ground of the assessee is dismissed.

ITAT “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI T. R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 558/Ahd/2013-  A.Ys. 2009-10

Shri Prakash Vasantbhai Golwala

Vs

The ACIT Circle-5, Surat 
Date of Pronouncement : 11/10/2013

O R D E R

PER SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :