Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 913/JP/2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 913/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 cuke Dibyendru Sarkar, I.T.O., Vs. 101, D-25, Friends Enclave, Ward 2(1), Jagan Path, Sadar Patel Marg, Jaipur. C-Scheme, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALZPS 6465 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Arpit Vijay (CA) & Ms. Apeksha Kalara (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/01/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/01/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30/05/2018 of ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not allowing deduction of interest on Housing Loan of Rs. 85,399/- U/s 24(b) of the IT Act, 1961 and Principal Repayment of Housing Loan of Rs. 7,298/- U/s 80C of the IT Act, 1961 as appearing in Form No. 16 issued by the employer/interest and principal certificate issued by the ICICI Bank.
2. Therefore, it is prayed to delete the relevant disallowances/ addition made to the returned income.”
ITA 913/JP/2018_ 2 Dibyendru Sarkar Vs ITO
The assessee is individual and did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued a notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on 25/3/2015. However, in response to the said notice U/s 148 of the Act, the assessee again did not file any return of income. The Assessing Officer on verification of the information of 26AS/TDS data framed the assessment U/s 148/144 of the Act at the total income of Rs.7,08,690/-.
The Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of salary income of Rs. 5,04,737/- and of Rs. 2,03,956/- as unexplained source of payment of credit card bills. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A), who called for a remand report and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment of credit card bill as well as directed the Assessing Officer to allow the credit of TDS as appearing in 26AS. Further the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction U/s 80C of the Act in respect of the tax on employment as well as provident fund deducted by the employer but did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of the repayment of housing loan as well as interest on the housing loan.
Before us, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the claim of deduction U/s 80C of the Act as the assessee could not produce the proof of repayment of loan as well as ITA 913/JP/2018_ 3 Dibyendru Sarkar Vs ITO interest on housing loan. He has referred to the additional evidence as well as application filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules) and submitted that the assessee has now obtained certificate from the HDFC bank regarding repayment of loan as well as interest on the housing loan. Thus, the ld AR has pleaded that the additional evidence may be admitted and the and the claim of deduction U/s 80C of the Act as well as U/s 24(b) of the Act may be allowed in respect of repayment of housing loan as well as interest on housing loan.
On the other hand, the ld DR has objected to the claim of the assessee and submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income and the assessment was also framed U/s 144 of the Act. It is a case of reopening of the assessment and therefore, the assessee cannot claim any deduction which was not claimed in the return of income. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record we note that the assessee did not file return of income for the year under consideration. Even the assessee has not filed the return of income in response to the notice U/s 148 of the Act and consequently the Assessing Officer completed the assessment U/s 144
ITA 913/JP/2018_ 4 Dibyendru Sarkar Vs ITO read with Section 148 of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished evidence in support of certain deductions and TDS credit. The ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and after considering the remand report, allowed certain deductions U/s 80C as well as deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of repayment of credit card bills. However, since the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of the deduction U/s 24(b) and 80C of the Act on account of interest and repayment of the housing loan, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claim of deduction on account of interest and principal amount of repayment of loan. Now the assessee has furnished the additional evidence alongwith an application. The additional evidence filed by the assessee is the certificate obtained from the bank as well as the bank account statement of the assessee showing the repayment of loan as well as the interest on housing loan. The additional evidence proposed to be filed by the assessee can be verified independently from the third party and therefore, it cannot be a case of any manipulation of evidence by the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and remit the matter back to the record of the Assessing
ITA 913/JP/2018_ 5 Dibyendru Sarkar Vs ITO Officer for verification of the same and then consider and decide the claim of deduction U/s 24(b) as well as 80C of the Act.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th January, 2019.