S. N. ROTHO, A.M.: These two appeals filed by same assessee are herd together and disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience. assessee is individual. She derives income from properties. She had two flats during year under consideration; one at Calcutta and other t Bombay. She was using both these houses as her dwelling houses as she was staying some time in Calcutta and some time in Bombay. case of assessee before ITO was that income from both flats taken together should be limited to 10 per cent of her other income "from other properties." second point raised by assessee was that fair rental income of Bombay flat could be only Rs. 350 per month. ITO did not agree with either of these two points. He held that ceiling of 10 per cent prescribed under proviso to s. 23 applies only to one dwelling house. Accordingly, he gave benefit of dwelling house under said proviso to Calcutta flat only. Regarding Bombay flat, he held that notional income therefrom need not be limited to 10 per cent of other income. Secondly, he considered estimated income of Rs. 3,000 as shown by assessee to be low and estimated same at Rs. 90,000. Accordingly, ITO took notional income form dwelling house at Bombay at Rs. 9,000 and made assessment accordingly. assessee appealed to AAC and contested both points mentioned in earlier paragraph. AAC agreed with ITO on both points and dismissed appeals. Shri. N. K. Poddar, ld. Representative for assessee, urged before me that Revenue authorities erred in their decision. He took me through provisions of s. 23(2) which reads as follow: "(2) Where property consists of (i) house in occupation of owner for purposes of his own residence annual value of such house shall first be determined in same manner as if property had been let and further be reduced by one-half of amount so detemined or three thousand and six hundred rupees, whichever is less; (ii) more than one house in occupation of owner for purposes of his own residentce, provisons of cl. (i) shall apply only in respect of one of such houses, which assessee amy, at his option, specity in this behalf: Provided that for purposes of cls. (i) and (ii) where sum so arrived at exceeds ten per cent of total income fo owner (the total income for this pourpose being computed without including therein any incmoe from such property and before making any deduction under Chapter VIA excess shall be disregarded." According to him, s. 23(2)(ii) says that assessee should choose one house only for prupose of provisions of cl. (i) of s. 23(2), i.e., for purpose of reducing income therefrom to one-half or Rs. 1,800 whichever is less. Sub-cl. (ii) of s. 23(2) does not serve any other purpose apart from limiting operation of sub-c. (i) of s. 23(2) to one chosen house. Sub-cl. (ii) does not extend to proviso which follows thereafter. He contended that proviso speaks of cls. (i) and (ii) which means that income from all dwelling houses taken together should be llimited to 10 per cent of other income. Secondly, he contended that even if there is any doubt in this regard, assessee should get benifit because of decision in case of CIT vs. Vegetable Produced Ltd. (1977) CTR (SC) 177: (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). Shri. S. Dasgupta, ld. Representative for Department, on other hand, supported order of Revenue authorities. He stated that s. 23(1) is intended for let out houses while s. 23(2) applies to dwelling house. If assessee has more than one house all of which are used as dwelling houses, then only one house has to be selected for purpose of s. 23(2)(i). in this case, we are not concerned with chosen house. It is that chosen house alone which comes under proviso. other dwelling house would have to be considered under s. 23(1)(a) i.e., on basis of reasonable rent that could be expected from letting out same. According to Shri Dasgupta, mention o f cls. (i) and (ii) in proviso to s. 23(2) does not mean that income determined in respect of dwelling house should delimited to 10 per cent of other incomes. Regarding estimate of Rs. 9,000 per annum, Shri Dasgupta urged that size and location of flat clearly shows that estimated was quite reasonable. Shri. N. K. Poddar replied that if interpretation of Shri Dasgupta were to be accepted then words "(i) and" appearing in proviso to s. 23(2) would be redundant and such interpretation is not permissible. I have considered contentions of both parties as well as facts o n record. I find that controversy raised in this appeal has already been solved by legislature by legislature by introduction of sub-s. (2A) to s. 23 w.e.f. 1st April, 1976. This sub-section reads as under: "(2A) For removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that where property consists of more than one house and such houses are in occupation of owner for purpose of his own residence annual value of house, other than that annual value of which is required to be determined under cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2), shall be determined under sub-s. (1) as if such houses had been let." mere reading of above sub-s. (2A) is enough to show that dwelling house other than one chosen under s. 23(2)(ii) comes under sub-s. (2A) and deemed income from such house or hoses shall be determined under sub-s. (1) as if such house head been let. Hence, there is no doubt that benefit of ceiling of 10 per cent provided for in proviso to s. 23(2)(ii) is n o t admissible to other dwelling house not chosen by assessee for purpose of s. 23(2)(ii). Consequently, Revenue authorities were quite correct in their decision to effect that income from second dwelling house of assessee should be determined under s. 23(1) and that said income could not be limited to 10 per cent of other income. I do not find any doubt or ambiguity about this position and so there is no question of applying ratio of Vegetable Product (supra) to facts of case, as claimed by learned representative for assessee. Hence, I uphold decision of Revenue authorities on this point. Coming to estimate of Bombay flat, I find that property is situated in Khar which is good locality and that its covered area is 853 sq. yds. It is true that house was purchased in 1972 for sum of Rs. 49,000. But we are now concerned with asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. flat has not been let. One has to see what is municipal valuation or amount of rent that would be fixed by appropriate authority under Rent Control Act in order to determine sum which might be reasonably expected from flat if let from year to year. In absence of any other evidence available on record to country, I find nothing improper in estimate of Rs. 750 per month for area of 853 sq. yds. in good locality like Khar in Bombay. I, therefore, hold that estimate of income made by Revenue authorities is also fair. In result, two appeals are dismissed. *** NASEEM BANU AKTAR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER