Revenue if aggrieved against order of CIT (A) deleting addition of Rs. 36,000 in respect of rental income of first floor of No. 15, Green Park Extension, New Delhi which according to assessee was vacant during whole of accounting year ended 31st March, 1980. assessee who owns No. 15. Green Park Extension, New Delhi had let out said building to Research Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India who vacated said building on 30th Nov., 1978 and, therefore assessee was able to let out ground floor and basement on monthly rent of Rs. 4,7000 w.e.f. 24th Aug., 1979 and one flat floor (out of 2 flats) w.e.f. 23rd July, 1981 (after close of accounting year under consideration on 31st March, 1980. On these fact is ITO assessed income from basement and ground floor for period of 7 months and 7 days without taking ALV for whole year. In respect of first floor which had remained vacant throughout accounting year ending 31st March, 1980. ITO estimated ALV at Rs. 43,000 ad allowed 1/6th for repairs but did not allow any vacancy allowance through first floor was vacant throughout accounting year. He held that vacancy allowance was allowable under s. 24(1)(ix) when property was let out during accounting year and was vacant during part of thee accounting year and as property in question had not at all been let out during accounting year, therefore, vacancy allowance was not allowable in respect of first floor. Reliance was placed on Liquidator, Mohmudabad Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 470 (Cal) where building which had been requisitioned by Govt. and later be derequisioned and was in damaged and dilapidated condition and was lying vacant during accounting year and assessee claimed that building had no annual value and in alternative he was entitled to vacancy allowance, High Court held that building had ALV and assessee was not entitled to vacancy allowance. CIT (A), however, accepted assessee's claim noting that property in question in Green Park Extension had been let out and tenancy had vacated property on 10th Nov., 1978 and assessee was not able to let out entire property and had let out on portion thereof (ground floor and basement) on 24th Aug., 1979. Thus, ITO was not justified to bifurcate composite building and ALV thereof into separate portions as building was constructed is one unit as whole as per plan approved by D. D. A. and house-tax and water-tax levied. Reliance was placed on Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E's decision dt. 27th Sept., 1975 in ITA No. 308 (Del)/1978-79 in Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta for asst. yr. 1972-73 where following Mangaldas H. Verma 1979 Tax LR 741 Bombay it was held to be sufficient that property was let out at any time prior to accounting period under consideration and that s.24(1)(ix) only lays down condition that "Where property is let" and does not specify it must be let out in year under consideration. CIT (A) observed that as property in question including first floor had been let out in preceding assessment year upto 30th Nov., 1978, therefore, deduction under s. 24(1)(ix)was available to assessee. We find that CIT (A) has wholly mis-directed himself in taking above view. Supreme Court in Liquidator of Mahmudabad Properties Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 192: (1980) 124 ITR 31, 39 (SC) upheld decision of Calcutta High Court in (1972) 28 ITR 470 (Cal (supra) and observed that "consequently when reading s. 24(1)(ix), which speaks of property which is let and which was vacant during part of year, we must read it to mean property which was let during previous year and was vacant during part of year. It cannot refer to property which was not let at all during previous year." view taken by Bombay High Court in Mangaldas H. Verma vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 185 (Bom) has not been correctly appreciated by Delhi Bench 'E' as Bombay High Court took same view as Supreme Court in Mahmudabad Properties (supra) when it observed that deduction under s. 24(1)(ix) can be claimed only if following two conditions are fulfilled: (i) property must have been actually let out; and (ii) properties must have been vacant for part of accounting year. In case before Bombay High Court, property was previously acquired by owner but was vacant during entire accounting periods relevant to asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1964-65 (year under appeal) and High Court held that assessee was not entitled to allowance under s. 24(1)(ix). Observations of Bombay High Court that at not time prior to accounting periods under consideration, property was ever let out are capable for interpretation out upon it by Delhi Bench 'E' (supra) but said observation are to be read in light of Calcutta High Court's decision in Liquidator, Mahmudabad Properties (supra) which Bombay High Court approved and further in light of Supreme Court's observation extracted above in Mahmudabad Properties (supra) to effect that letting out of property has to be in accounting year under consideration and not in any earlier accounting period. matter is now out beyond doubt by full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar M. Shah (1981) 130 ITR 118 (Ker) (FB) where it was held that property must be vacant during part of year and not for entire year and not allowance for vacancy can be allowed under s. 24(1)(ix) if property was vacant for whole year. Similar view was taken by Chaturvedi and Pithisaria Income-tax law, 3rd Edn. Vol. I at p. 757-8 and Sampath Iyengar on Law of Income-tax, 7th Edn. Vol. I p. 1046. Kanga and Palkhivala in Law & Practice of Income-tax (Supplement to 7th Edn. at p. 53) has criticised Full Bench decision in Pradeep Kumar R. Shah and observed that Supreme Court's decision in Mahmudabad Properties has to be confirmed to facts of that case where property was unbeatable. We are, however, unable to subscruble to said view of ld. commentator in view of clear judicial opinion to contrary. In result, we hold that assessee was not entitled to vacancy allowance in respect of first floor. We, accordingly vacate order of CIT (A) on this point. However, we see force in assessee's contention that entire property was composite property and has been let out as such to Cabinet Secretariat and only because assessee could not find tenant for whole building, therefore ground floor and basement was let out on 24th June, 1979 on rent of Rs. 4,700 p.m. and first floor remained vacant during year under consideration and part of first floor was let out next year and that house-tax and water-tax were levied on entire property as unit. These conditions, however, have not been examined by ITO before whom it was raised by letter dt. 5th March, 1983 nor by CIT (A) (who mentioned it in Para 2 of its order). Under these circumstances, we restore matter to file of ITO to examine this contention and if found correct to determine ALV of entire building and then to allow necessary deductions including vacancy allowance for first floor. In result, Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. SARVESH KUMAR