JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by L. Narasimha Reddy J.-The legal representative of assessee filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by order dated August 25, 2003, passed by Visakhapatnam Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") in I. T. A. No. 545/Vizag/98. facts, in brief, are as under: Smt. A.V. Narsamma was owner of item of immovable property, bearing No. 10-1-32A, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam. building was given on lease to Telecom Department and Narsamma was assessee under Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). She was showing income from house property, in her returns, year after year. She passed away on September 16, 1994. Her legal representative, i.e., appellant herein, filed returns for period between April 1, 1994, and September 16, 1994, and paid income-tax on income from house property. owner of house, i.e., Narsamma, executed registered will, bequeathing property in favour of trust. same was acted upon and trust received rents and paid income-tax thereon by filing returns for period subsequent to September 17, 1994. In relation to some dispute, as to quantum of rent, appellant herein as well as trust filed appeals. Another grievance of appellant was that Assessing Officer levied tax on deceased late Narsamma for period subsequent to her death also. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed appeal on question of quantum but did not address justification for levy of tax on deceased- assessee for period subsequent to her death. I. T. A. No. 545/Vizag/1998 filed by appellant before Tribunal was dismissed. Hence, this further appeal. Sri Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for appellant, submits that rent for building was paid at Rs. 13,500, in all, per month, and without there being any basis, Assessing Officer proposed to fix it at Rs. 4.50 per square feet, that too, in absence of any specific data as to exact area. He further submits that Commissioner mistook contents of letter dated October 20, 1992, addressed by Telecom Department and proceeded as though appellant agreed for rent at Rs. 2.83, per square feet and on assumption that rent is being paid on those lines, applied that figure. Learned counsel submits that there was absolutely no basis for Assessing Officer to levy tax on income from house property on deceased-assessee as well as trust for same period and Tribunal did not address this vital issue on technical grounds. Sri S. R. Ashok, learned senior counsel for respondent, on other hand, submits that Assessing Officer entertained serious doubt as to accuracy of rent on which tax is paid and by following prescribed procedure, he levied tax on enhanced amount. He submits that Commissioner has taken reasonable and practical view of matter and same was upheld by Tribunal. As regards alleged double levy, learned counsel submits that question was not raised before Commissioner and obviously for that reason, Tribunal refused to deal with it. Two aspects arise for consideration. first is about quantum of rent; and second is about period regarding which appellant is under obligation to pay tax. It is specific case of appellant that rent for premises was being paid at Rs. 10,000, per month, for structure and Rs. 3,500 per month for furniture and fittings and that same was being taken into account year after year. It is, no doubt, true that Assessing Officer has every right to verify accuracy of facts and figures furnished by assessee and if he comes to conclusion that rent for period is being shown at low figure, he can gather information in respect of neighbouring premises and determine income accordingly. Occasions of that nature would arise, mostly when premises are leased to private individuals. Where, however, premises, are leased to Government or its organisations, scope for assessee to show rent at lower figure does not arise. Further, there does not exist any particular standard to fix rent of any premises. Much would depend upon location and condition of building, on one hand, and demand in locality, on other. Where lessee is Government, transaction is regulated by fixed parameters. Even if building has potential to fetch higher rent, Government departments are not expected to pay such rent. In case owner of premises is willing to lease them to Government or its agencies, for reasons of safety and security or assured payment of rent, discretion of Assessing Officer to determine reasonable rent of his choice, gets virtually restricted. He cannot ignore actual payments and fix imaginary figure, based upon alleged information or potential of building. Things would have been different altogether, had it been case where appellant is alleged to have suppressed correct information and furnished accurate figures. This is rare case, in which proceedings under section 271C of Act were initiated, and on close verification of matter, they were dropped. figure Rs. 2.83 per square feet, mentioned in order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was found to be imaginary. figure was derived by dividing rent of Rs. 13,500 with carpet area and not actual area of building. effort of Telecom Department in addressing letter was to resist plea of appellant for enhancement of rent. Once penalty proceedings were dropped, suggested figure virtually loses its significance. Therefore, we hold that rent for premises must be taken at Rs. 13,500, unless there was any enhancement by lessee itself, for any subsequent period. next question is about levy of tax on two assessees for same premises and for same period. It has already been mentioned that original assessee died on September 16, 1994, and her legal representative filed returns for period from April 1, 1994, to September 16, 1994. Tax was also paid on income derived from house property. For subsequent period, trust, which became legatee, filed returns and paid tax. Once that is so, there was absolutely no basis for Assessing Officer to levy tax for same period on testator also. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not address this issue and Tribunal refused to take that into account on ground that it was not raised earlier. Being last authority on facts, Tribunal was supposed to deal with every aspect, that arises for consideration, uninhibited by any such restrictions. But for fact that will deed is not uninhibited by any such restrictions. But for fact that will deed is not before us, we would have decided issue here itself. We feel that it is matter for remand to Assessing Officer, on that limited aspect. We accordingly allow appeal and set aside order passed by Assessing Officer, as modified by Commissioner and affirmed by Tribunal. matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verifying will deed and factum of bequest of property on trust. If it emerges that trust became legatee and started enjoying rights of ownership from September 17, 1994, onwards, there shall not be levy of any tax upon appellant for that period. Even for period from April 1, 1994, to September 16, 1994, rent shall be taken as Rs. 13,500, per month. There shall be no order as to costs. miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. *** A. Venkateswara Rao v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax