Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against an order dated 31.10.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Chennai.
ITA No.207/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:
Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that assessee had made a mistake while filing the return of income, whereby the address of the house property, owned by the assessee was inadvertently mentioned as Flat No.1C, first floor, No.9, Second lane, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai, whereas the actual address of the property was Flat No. W-42, Fourth floor, Heritage Shankara, New No.64 and 66, Old No.62 and 63 Mayor Rama Spurtank Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. As per the assessee the disallowance of interest of �6,90,455/- claimed by it u/s. 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) was made for the sole reason that the interest payment was claimed on Flat No. W-42, Fourth floor, Heritage Shankara, New No.64 and 66, Old No.62 and 63 Mayor Rama Spurtank Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031 and for non production of documentary evidence. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee owned only one residential flat mentioned at address second given above, which was let out by him. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the rental income therefrom was shown in the return of income. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the first address Flat No.1C, first floor, No.9, Second lane, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai was a rented premises, where assessee was staying and the actual owner of the said property was one Cap Ajith T. Joseph.
ITA No.207/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative stated that despite being given a number of opportunities assessee could not produce any evidence in support of its contention.
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Ld. Authorised Representative has filed an application requesting admission additional evidence in accordance with Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. I find that such additional evidence comprise of a copy of the purchase deed of the Flat No. W-42, Fourth floor, Heritage Shankara, New No.64 and 66, Old No.62 and 63 Mayor Rama Spurtank Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031 and a rental agreement for flat No.1C, first floor, No.9, Second lane, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai. It might be true that assessee had not produced these records before the lower authorities despite number of opportunities given to it.
However, evidence produced before me, are such that, if they are not considered, it will result in miscarriage of justice. No assessee can be penalized for a simple clerical mistake, whereby a wrong address has been shown. Disallowance of claim u/s.24(b) of the Act was made only for a reason that housing loan interest certificate given by M/s.
HDFC reflected address Flat No. W-42, Fourth floor, Heritage Shankara, New No.64 and 66, Old No.62 and 63 Mayor Rama Spurtank
ITA No.207/Mds/2017 :- 4 -:
Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. I set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue regarding claim of interest u/s. 24(b) of the Act back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer, for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to file the evidence in support of its claim before ld. Assessing Officer, who will be proceed as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 5. purpose.