1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mrs. Snehlata Chaubey & Anr. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.117/2001 under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment ::::::: July 30,2009 Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Mr. B.C.Chirania for the petitioners Mr. J.N.Sharma for the respondent No.1. By the Court(oral) By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 21.07.1988 (Annexure-3) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. It is stated that the non-petitioner was assessed under the provisions of the Land & Building Tax. The assessment of the property was made adopting the rent capitalization method. While determining the rent value of 2 the property certain amounts were not deducted, therefore, the non-petitioner assessee filed an appeal followed by a revision petition. While filing the revision petition two issues were raised for consideration of the revisional authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. The first issue was that amount of interest of loan payable by assessee for the property so valued was not deducted while determining its value and secondly, that amount of land & building tax was also not deducted to assess the value of the property. The revisional authority allowed the revision petition so filed by the non-petitioner assessee by the order dated 21.7.1988 and the non- petitioner assessee was granted relief and accordingly direction was passed that the value of the property may be re-assessed after giving benefit of deduction of the amount of interest as well as land & building tax and the matter was remitted back accordingly. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there exists no rule which provide that while assessing the value of the property for assessment of land & building tax the amount of interest is to be deducted. It is further submitted that even the amount of land & building tax 3 could not be taken into consideration while ascertaining the value of the property and thus, the impugned order passed in the revision petition has been challenged on the aforesaid ground. It is stated that whatever deductions which were permissible like the amount of insurance etc. have been allowed to be deducted pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority. However, by the impugned order dated 21.7.1988 further deductions have been allowed without any basis. Thus, the impugned order (Annexure-3) may be set aside. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner assessee submits that the amount of interest was required to be deducted to assess the value of the property on rent realization method. It is stated that while passing the impugned order, aforesaid aspect was properly considered in the light of the judgments rendered by the Board of Revenue on the same subject matter. Reference on other judgments was also made to hold that while the value of the property is assessed on rent realization method the assessee is entitled for deduction of amount of interest from the amount so assessed for the property. In view of the above it is prayed that the order passed by 4 the revisional authority is in accordance with law and thus, while dismissing the writ petition, the aforesaid order may be maintained. My attention has been drawn towards the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. In this case, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court after taking into consideration the income from the house property came to the conclusion that the amount of representing interest is required to be deducted. The aforesaid judgment is reported in 1986 ITR Vol.160 page 864 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Parekh Kothi Ltd. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case there are two issues only for consideration by this Court. The first issue is as to whether the amount of interest on the amount of loan taken by the assess for construction of the building can be deducted while adopting rent realization method to assess the value of the property and the another aspect of the matter is as to whether the 5 land and building tax is also required to be deducted for the same purpose. Sofar as deduction of the amount of interest is concerned, there exists a judgment on that issue (supra) apart from other judgments so referred in the impugned judgment itself. In those judgments it has been held that that while determining the value of the property, interest on the loan amount needs to be deducted. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the view that the order passed in revision deserves to be maintained so far as the direction for deduction of amount of interest for assessing the value of the property on rent realization method. The another aspect of the matter is as to whether the amount of the land and building tax is also required to be deducted. Counsel for the non-petitioner assessee could not support his argument either by showing a judgment or otherwise. In fact, while assessing the value of the property, the amount of land and building tax so payable cannot be deducted and position was then accepted by the counsel for the respondent. In view of the aforesaid, the revisional order cannot be maintained to the extent of issuance of direction for deduction of the 6 amount of the land and building tax for assessing the value of the property. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the revisional authority is set aside to the extent of direction for deduction of the amount of the land and building tax. Remaining order is maintained. The directions of the revisional authority would now be carried out. (M.N.Bhandari), J. bairwa