SHAMSUNDAR HERAMBA NAIK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the NFAC, CIT(A)vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075788594(1) dated 24.04.2025. 2. At the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 15 days. In this regard, assessee has filed an affidavit dated 14.07.2025 stating reason for delay in filing the appeal. On going through the affidavit, we noted that there is reasonable cause for delay and by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987 (2) SC, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Page 2 of 4 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. Assessee filed return of income on 29.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.46,84,430/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 25.03.2019 making certain adjustments and income from house property was added of Rs.35,945/-. The income was assessed after adjustment of Rs.56,02,554/- and loss of Rs.8,79,779/- was not allowed to the assessee. The return was processed on 25.03.2019. Resultantly there is a demand of Rs.4,33,650/-. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, assessee filed submissions and from the submissions assessee had taken 2 loans for the let out property bearing No.16, Survey No.30, Raksha Nikunj, Bengaluru – 562 149, one home loan and one top-up loan. Assessee had also taken home loan for the self occupied house property and the only interest paid on the let out property has been claimed in the income tax return and the interest paid on self occupied property was not claimed in the income tax return. The address of the let out property is No.16, Survey No.30, Raksha Nikunj, Bengaluru – 562 149. Assessee claimed loss from house property only on the above let out property and addresss of the self occupied property is Petals, 11 F3 Chinnappa Garden Link Road, Bangalore – 560 046.Assessee had borrowed from Bajaj Fin Serve. Assessee furnished interest certified issued by Bajaj Fin Serve. In fact it was observed that the assessee had borrowed 2 loans to construct the premises. Home loan account No.404SHL09456979 and 404SHL08897554 and amount of loan is Rs.70,50,000/- and Rs.18,30,000/- respectively. The property was let out to Mr. Varadarajan and rent of Rs.54,350/- was received. After going through the entire payments which is incorporated, the CIT(A) noted in the Order that assessee claimed deduction under section 24(b) of the Act, of Rs.9,15,724/-. The learned CIT(A) noted that while filing return of Page 3 of 4 income at page No.7 of the ITR against schedule HP (details of income from house property), details of let out property located at Raksha Colony, Bengaluru) at Sr. No.1(h) where interest payable on borrowed capital is required to be disclosed the assessee has mentioned the same as ‘0’. It is therefore clear that the assessee has not claimed any deduction towards interest paid on borrowed capital against the income from the relevant house property. Accordingly, he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned DR relied on the Order of learned CIT(A) and submitted that matter may be remitted back to AO for verification of the correct claim of the interest. When the case was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the case was heard in the presence of learned DR. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned DR, we noted that the entire details regarding interest certificate issued by Bajaj Fin Serve and details of loan taken, interest paid and principal payment in respect of 2 home loan accounts noted supra were submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and learned CIT(A) also observed that there is no claim of housing loan interest of Rs.9,15,724/- and as per the interest certificate, the figures are tallied. There is no dispute on this point. Before the ld. CIT (A) the claim of housing loan interest was furnished and is incorporated in the order , there is no disput that the assessee has claimed not loss from self occupied house property. Assessee has also shown rent received from Raksha Nikunj of Rs.54,350/-. The annual rent shown by the assessee is also not in dispute. Therefore, we are convinced that assessee should get benefit of housing loan interest. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee. The Page 4 of 4 learned CIT(A) has not accepted only because of the technical reasons that there is mistake in quoting figure at the correct space provided in the income tax return. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (KESHAV DUBEY) Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 13.10.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order