GURPREET SINGH SONI,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

आदेश/Order

PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 28/06/2019 of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur.

" 1. Learned CIT "A" wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by the learned AO by disallowing interest paid on self occupied house. the disallowance made is solely on the basis of technical ground and without following provision of law. Hence the addition confirmed is bad in law and be deleted." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on

20/09/2013 declaring an income of Rs. 7,97,020/- later on the case was selected

for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment at the same income

under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘Act’). Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the order dated. 03/10/2018

under section 154 of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 16,07,985/- one of

the addition was of Rs. 1,50,000/- by disallowing the claim of the assessee

amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 24(b) of the Act for the reason that no

documentary evidence was furnished. The assessee moved an application

under section 154 of the Act which was rejected by the Assessing Officer.

confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that in absence of

certificate as required by the provisions of law it was a mistake apparent from

the record.

interest on self occupied house property under section 24(b) of the Act was not

available earlier with the assessee, therefore it could not be produced. Although

details of the interest paid on the housing loan were furnished before the

Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A). It was stated that the claim of the

assessee was not wrong and was based on the bank statement and that the

payment of interest was made to the bank on housing loan therefore the

Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the claim of the assessee and the Ld.

CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer.

6.1 In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the

authorities below.

material available on the record. In the present case it appears that the

authorities below did not doubt the claim of the assessee but the same was not

allowed for the reason that the assessee could not produce the certificate from

the bank. Now the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had furnished the copy of the

bank certificate wherein it was mentioned that interest paid from 01/04/2012 to

31/03/2013 was Rs. 4,76,690/-. I therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this

issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same after

considering the aforesaid bank certificate now produced by the assessee, in

accordance with law, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being

heard to the assessee.

(Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/11/2019)

Sd/- ( N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 25/11/2019

Copy of the order forwarded to :