Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 18,05,477/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest paid on borrowed capital. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the addition ex-parte. The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 324 days.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the AO was subsequently revisited due to proceedings under section 263 of the Act. In a consequential order, the AO accepted the assessee's claim under section 24(b) of the Act for the same amount, making no addition. Therefore, the issue was considered settled.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is infructuous and liable to be dismissed as the issue has been settled by a subsequent order accepting the assessee's claim.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 24(b), 250, 263, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Telkar Sreenivasarao Sathyanarayanna Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rao, D5 SVNTH, 100 Feet Road, Circle - 1(1) & TPS, Karnataka – 571 401. Mysore. . PAN – ABWPS 3534 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H Shankare Gowda, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R PER : SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/12/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘ Act’) for the assessment year {AY} 2017-18.
In the instant case , vide assessment order dated 29/03/2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, the AO made the addition of Rs.18,05,477/- on account of disallowance of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s 24(b) of the Act.
Page 2 of 3 3. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order confirmed the aforesaid addition/disallowance by passing ex-parte order due to non- persecution by the assessee.
The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition/disallowance by filing the instant appeal, however, with a delay of 324 days, along with application for condonation of delay.
Without going into controversy with regard to condonation of delay, we observe as demonstrated by the authorities that such addition made by the AO vide assessment order dated 29-03-2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, was also subjected to proceedings and order dated 06-03-2024 under section 263 of the Act by the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT, Bangalore -3) and the AO ultimately vide consequential effect order dated 14/03/2025 u/s 147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act, has accepted the claim u/s 24(b) of the Act to the tune of Rs.18,05,477/- on account of disallowance made on the interest paid on housing loan and ultimately, made no addition by such appeal effect giving order. Thus, the issue has stands settled and consequently appeal filed by the assessee stands has become infructuous and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.