Per Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member: This is appeal by assessee arising out of order by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VII, Ahmedabad ['CIT(A)' for short] for assessment year 1993-94. 2. appeal raises following grounds:- '1. In facts and circumstances of case, your appellant most respectfully submits that learned Assessing Officer had erred in disallowing claim of expenditure incurred on salary and Bonus paid to Pumpman, Sweepers, Liftman of Rs. 89,100 and Rs. 20,300 respectively and Electricity Charges of Rs. 41,764 being exps. Incurred for electric burning for Pump Motor, Common Passage and lift. Through said expenditure were in nature of obligatory expenses on part of your appellant to earn rental income and for contractual obligation to tenants and therefore being in nature of direct charge against rental income itself under section 22 of Act and Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming said addition on ground that no such expenditure can be allowed under section 24 of Act. 2. Your appellant further submits that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has further erred in giving direction to learned Assessing Officer to follow order of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad without appreciation entire facts of case in proper perspective and has further erred in giving direction to learned Assessing Officer to tax receipt of Additional rent received from various tenants on income from other sources. 3. Yours appellant further submits that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-VII, Ahmedabad has further erred in enhance- ing income of unrealized rent from one tenant Shri Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) and has further erred in not allowing deduction under section 24(1)(x) being unrealisable rent. 4. Your appellant further submits that Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has further erred in enhancing income of your appellant by Rs. 3,402 being Municipal valuation of property used by your appellant for purpose of office.' 3. facts of case in brief qua ground No. 1 are that assessee is co-owner of house property, deriving rental income therefrom on regular basis, and which stands offered to tax and assessed under head of income 'Income from house property' falling under Chapter IV-C of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter). For relevant year assessee claimed following deductions in computation of its income under said head: (Amount in Rs.) (1) Salary of Sweepers Pumpman and Liftman 89,100 (2) Bonus of Sweepers, Pumpmen and Liftman 20,200 (3) Electric burning for pump-motor and common passage 41,764 1,51,164 As said expenses stood not covered under sections 23 and 24 of Act, assessee was denied said claimed deductions by Assessing Officer, relying for purpose on decision in case of CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons [1984] 149 ITR 253 (Delhi) and CIT v. Sreelekha Banerjee [1989] 179 ITR 46 (Cal.). same stood confirmed in first appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us ld. A.R., assessee's counsel, submitted that said expenditure was obligatory on assessee's part, so that same had to be incurred for earning rental income which stands assessed to tax. As such, same ought to be allowed in computation of income from said source. That, it needs to be appreciated that rent received is at gross amount and it should be considered as having been received short to that extent, i.e., against house property, with amount having been received only in lieu of impugned expenditure. ld. D.R., on other hand, relied on orders of lower authorities, claiming same to be in conformity with relevant provisions of Act as well as settled law in matter as explained by courts time and again. 5. We have heard parties and perused material on record. 5.1 Act mandates particular head for each type of income, so that same has necessarily to be assessed under said head and in manner provided under relevant Chapter. As such, assessee's contention of being contractually obliged to bear said expenditure under relevant (rent) agreement would be of no moment; assessee being entitled to claim only deductions as enumerated under section 24 of Act in computation of its income assessable under section 22. 5.2 So however, we find merit in assessee's second plea. This is as what section 22 attempts to assess is annual value of property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto, of which assessee is owner, and which has not been put to use for purposes of its business or profession by it. rent being charged by assessee, if so, is only surrogate measure of said annual value. expenditure on aforesaid items, i.e., salary (including bonus) to maintenance staff of facilities as electric motors, lift, cleaning, etc., as well as that on electricity consumed in respect of any common area and electric motors, is not attributable directly to house property as such, but to its enjoyment by tenant/users thereof. In given case it may well be that said expenditure is incurred by tenant or tenants (collectively), with land-lord having no locus standi or role therein, so that who incurs same in first instance, is only matter of mutual arrangement or convenience and, thus, of no consequence where bona fides thereof are, as in present case, not in doubt. rent being charged by assessee, which represents measure of its annual value, would, being only decided under said arrangement, in such case, stand correspondingly reduced. As such, though assessee, being entitled only to deductions in respect of said expenditure in computation of income under said head of income only in terms of its provisions, would not be entitled to impugned deductions, we consider that annual value of its house property be assumed at reduced value, i.e., after deducting impugned amounts (from rental), being only in relation to expenditure required to be necessarily incurred for enjoyment/user of relevant property and, therefore, can only be considered as having been included at said amount, i.e., at cost, by two parties in reckoning/determining of same (rental). We decide accordingly. 5.3 In this context we may also add that standard deduction admissible to assessee on account of repairs @ 1/6th of annual value of its house property is in relation to repairs, whether actually incurred (and, again, at higher or lower value than said standard amount) or not, by assessee during relevant year. However, impugned sums are not in relation to any repairs to house property, but for maintenance of facilities enjoined therewith, and necessary for its useful enjoyment. Also, case law cited by Revenue in support of its case would not be relevant, being in relation to different propositions, and which do not stand in any manner contradicted by decision in present case, which stands decided on basis of its relevant facts. 6. assessee's second ground relates to direction by ld. CIT(A) for assessing additional rent (Rs. 4,01,601) received by assessee from its tenants in respect of its house property under head 'Income from other sources', i.e., under Chapter IV-F of Act. As apparent from ground itself, said direction by ld. CIT(A) follows decision by ITAT (Ahmedabad Bench) in assessee's case for assessment years 1989-90, 1992-93 and 1994-95 (ITA Nos. 757-758/Ahd./1996 and ITA No. 22/Ahd./1997, dated 9-5- 2002), even as assessee pleaded before him that matter stood disputed by assessee before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. 7. We have heard parties and perused material on record. There is n o dispute as regards respective cases of rival parties. However, we find, firstly, that assessee has not raised said ground before ld. CIT(A), even though impugned order states of same having been raised in appeal before him vide ground No. 2, so that it is not clear as to how same arises for adjudication by him. Secondly, this issue could also not possibly be raised by assessee as Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) has himself assessed said income received by way of additional rent by assessee under section 22 of Act. No doubt, it is within competence of first appellate authority to assume jurisdiction in respect of any matter, whether raised before him or not, qua assessment which is under appeal before him, but that would necessitate that assessee is properly show-caused in matter by him, while, as aforesaid, it appears that impugned direction to Assessing Officer has been made by deciding assessee's ground No. 2 before him. As such, we consider it fit, in interest of justice and fairness of procedure, that matter to be restored back to file of ld. CIT(A) for proper consideration and adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. We decide accordingly. 8. assessee's third ground before us relates to direction by ld. CIT(A) for inclusion of sum of Rs. 24,024, being rent for which house property stands rented to one, M/s. Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which stood not received during year as said tenant company was under liquidation. 9. We have heard parties and perused material on record. assessee's case before us, as pleaded by ld. A.R., was that rule 4 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, which allows assessee deduction in respect of unrealized rent [under section 24(1)(x)], stands satisfied. We find neither such plea having been taken by assessee before lower authorities, nor their finding(s) in this respect. And which, being purely factual matter, would need to be ascertained and verified by them before arriving at conclusion if mandate of said Rule stands, in fact, satisfied (so that assessee is exigible to said deduction) or not; law in matter being clear and on which we see no difference or dispute. We, therefore, only consider it fit that matter is restored back to file of ld. CIT(A), whereat same has arisen, and adjudication following due process of law and may, if so deemed fit, seek verification by Assessing Officer. We decide accordingly. 10. Ground No. 4 of Appeal was not pressed at time of hearing, and is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 11. In result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. *** J.B. PATEL & CO. (CO-OWNERS) v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX