K. GOVARDHAN REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2270/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 July 2018AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claims for housing loan interest and other deductions under Section 80C were genuine and supported by documentary evidence. The AO was directed to allow these deductions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a salaried employee, claimed deductions for housing loan interest and other expenses under Sections 24 and 80C. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied these claims ex-parte without clear evidence of notice issuance.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in denying deductions for housing loan interest and other expenses under Section 80C without proper notice. Whether the assessee's claims were supported by valid documentation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: B. RAMAKOTAIAH

Hearing: 04.07.2018Pronounced: 04.07.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No.2270/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri K. Govardhan Reddy, vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-12(2), PAN: AKBPK 5195 R Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri K.V. Chalamaiah For Revenue : B. Suresh Babu, DR Date of Hearing : 04.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, AM.

This is an appeal by assessee against order of CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad dated 18.09.2017 denying certain claims u/s 24 and 80C claimed by the salaried person. 2. Briefly stated, assessee is a salaried employee and filed return of income based on Form 16 given by the employer. Since the case got selected under CASS (reason not specified by A.O.), A.O. completed assessment ex-parte u/s 144 denying claims made by assessee u/s 24 of the interest paid on housing loan and deduction u/s 80C on the payments made to various specified items, which are certified and allowed in Form 16 by the employer. Even though A.O. states that assessee has not responded to the notices, there is no indication of either issuance of notices or even the dates of posting in the order. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee furnished the copies of Form 16 issued by employer and certificate from HDFC issued in order to enable

to claim the deduction under IT Act. Surprisingly, Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the claims except one amount of LIC premium. 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the evidence placed on record, I am satisfied that the claims made by the assessee are genuine and are supported by Form 16 as well as certificate from HDFC. A.O. is therefore directed to allow the amount of interest Rs. 1,06,279/- as deduction u/s 24 and the claim of housing loan prepayment of Rs. 19,469/- certified by HDFC and PF contribution of Rs. 60,545/- and Children Education Expenditure of Rs. 32,910/- certified by employer u/s 80C. Consequently, the grounds raised in the issues are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th July, 2018. Sd/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 04th July, 2018. OKK, Sr.PS Copy to 1. K. Govardhan Reddy, H.No. 8-2-598/A/14/1, (New No.470), Opp. Ofen Bakery, road No.10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad-500034. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(2), Hyderabad. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad. 4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →