AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, the following question of law has been referred to this court :" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the loss under the head 'income from house property' should be recomputed after allowing deduction of Rs. 96,000 under Section 24 (1) (x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unrealised rent subject to the condition that the loss so determined shall be restricted to the amount of loss claimed by the assessee ?" ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the assessee-company in the three years under reference was the owner of house property at 31, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. Gross rental income from the said property was returned at nil as the Soviet Consulate occupying the property did not pay any rent to the assessee. The original lease also stood expired on January 14, 1981. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the above contention of the assessee and estimated the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 96,000 for assessment under the head "house property income" in the three years under consideration. The assessee challenged the above order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but without any success. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that, for the limited purpose of deciding the dispute in the assessment years before it, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to examine the contentions regarding the justification for determination of the annual value of the property at Rs. 96,000. Under Section 24 (1) (x) of the Act, deduction of amounts in respect of rent from property let to a tenant which the assessee could not realise has to be allowed for computing the income from house property. The Tribunal addressed itself to the claim of deduction under the provision. 96,000. Under Section 24 (1) (x) of the Act, deduction of amounts in respect of rent from property let to a tenant which the assessee could not realise has to be allowed for computing the income from house property. The Tribunal addressed itself to the claim of deduction under the provision. The Tribunal found from the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee went to the High Court twice by way of writ to compel the Government of India to consider its application under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code to institute a suit against the Soviet Consulate. The Tribunal further observed that it was admitted that, after expiry of the lease, the assessee had not received any rent. So, the Tribunal held that the conditions for deduction under Section 24 (1){x) were fulfilled. In the above view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of unrealised rent of Rs. 96,000 per year. The Tribunal, accordingly, directed that loss under the head " Income from house property " be recomputed after allowing deduction of Rs. 96,000 as unrealised rent from the income from house property in each of these assessment years subject to the condition that the loss so determined should be restricted to the amount of loss claimed by the assessee. ( 4 ) THE only question which calls for determination is whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the conditions prescribed in Section 24 (1) (x) were satisfied. Section 24 (1) (x) provides as follows :" 24. (1) Income chargeable under the head ' Income from house property ' shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), be computed after making the following deductions, namely :. . . (x) subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount in respect of rent from property let to a tenant which the assessee cannot realise. " ( 5 ) RULES have been duly framed and rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is as follows :"4. . . (x) subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the amount in respect of rent from property let to a tenant which the assessee cannot realise. " ( 5 ) RULES have been duly framed and rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is as follows :"4. Unrealised rent.-- Under Clause (x) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24, deduction shall be allowed of such part of income in respect of which tax is payable under the head Income from house property' as is equal to the amount of rent payable but not paid by a tenant of the assessee and so proved to be lost and irrecoverable, where - (a) the tenancy is bona fide ; (b) the defaulting tenant has vacated, or steps have been taken to compel him to vacate the property ; (c) the defaulting tenant is not in occupation of any other property of the assessee ; (d) the assessee has taken all reasonable steps to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of the unpaid rent or satisfied the Income-tax Officer that legal proceedings would be useless ; and (e) the annual value of the property to which the unpaid rent relates has been included in the assessed income of the previous year during which that rent was due and tax has been duly paid on such assessed income : Provided that the deduction to be allowed on this account shall not exceed the income under the head ' Income from house property' included in the total income as computed without making any deduction under this rule. " ( 6 ) AS would appear from the order of the Tribunal,,, the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that, after expiry of the lease, the assessee had not received any rent and the application made by the assessee under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code to institute a suit against the Soviet Consulate did not succeed as the Government did not accord any sanction. On these facts, the Tribunal came to the finding that the assessable rent was proved to be lost and irrecoverable. ( 7 ) IN our view, the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the conditions for deduction under Section 24 (1) (x) were fulfilled. On these facts, the Tribunal came to the finding that the assessable rent was proved to be lost and irrecoverable. ( 7 ) IN our view, the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the conditions for deduction under Section 24 (1) (x) were fulfilled. It is true that the assessee had moved the High Court twice to compel the Government of India to consider its application made under Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code to institute a suit against the Soviet Consulate. It is not the case of the assessee that the assessee was refused such permission. It appears that the assessee had not pursued the matter after obtaining directions from the writ jurisdiction of this court. That apart, it is not also disputed that the Soviet Consulate tendered the rent of Rs. 8,000 per month which was fixed years back. The cheque had been issued by the Consulate and tendered to the assessee towards monthly rent but the said cheque was not accepted primarily on the ground that, the Soviet Consulate became a trespasser upon the expiry of the term of the lease. ( 8 ) MR. Khaitan, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee, has submitted that, after the refusal of the assessee-landlord to accept the rent tendered by the Soviet Consulate, the rent was being deposited with the Rent Controller and the assessee did not withdraw such rent. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the rent was not realisable at all. The Soviet Consulate was prepared to pay Rs. 8,000 per month which was the rent fixed long time ago. Such rent was tendered and when the assessee refused, it was deposited with the Rent Controller. The assessee did not take all reasonable steps to institute legal proceedings. The assessee's contention was that, after the expiry of the lease, the Soviet Consulate became a trespasser and accordingly, the rent was not accepted. These facts do not prove that the rent was lost and became irrecoverable. At least, the assessee could realise rent which was originally fixed at Rs. 8,000 per month from the Soviet Consulate. The annual value was determined on the basis of such rent. These facts do not prove that the rent was lost and became irrecoverable. At least, the assessee could realise rent which was originally fixed at Rs. 8,000 per month from the Soviet Consulate. The annual value was determined on the basis of such rent. In our view, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction under Section 24 (1) (x) as the conditions precedent for such deduction have not been satisfied by the assessee. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.