Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
In this appeal filed by the assessee, it has raised the
following grounds:-
‘’The appellate order dated 19-08-2016 passed by CIT (A) 5 is quite arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts of the case of your appellant.
ITA No. 2873/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:
The learned CIT (A) has stated in his order in Para 7.2 that remand report was called for various disallowance and stated that the assessing officer did not give reasons for the disallowances made. In remand report In the absence of any response from AO and valid reasons for disallowance. The learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of AO. 3. Neither the AO nor the learned CIT (A) has given any findings or reasons on the disallowances made. 4. The order passed by learned CIT (A) is very vague and CIT (A) has mentioned that no documentary evidence was submitted failing to recognize that the AO himself has no reason to disallow the same in first place.
Facts apropos are that assessee an employee of HDFC Bank 2.
had filed return of income for the impugned assessment year
disclosing an income of �45,38,200/-. Total income consisted of
salary, income from house property and income from other sources.
Under the head ‘’income from other sources’’, assessee had interest on
term deposits and interest on saving bank account, against which
bank interest/charges of �13,525/- and Audit fees of �6,000/- were
claimed as deduction. Apart from this, under the head income from
House Property assessee returned a negative figure of �1,50,000/-,
claiming it as interest on housing loan. Assessment was completed by
the ld. Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of interest on housing
loan and claim of bank charges/interest and audit fees. Assessing
Officer did not allow 80G deduction which was claimed by the
assessee.
ITA No. 2873/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:
Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) sought a remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer.
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) specifically directed the ld.
Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons for disallowance and why
assessee’s claim u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not
allowed. In the remand report what was mentioned by the ld.
Assessing Officer is reproduced hereunder:-‘
‘’On perusal of the Assessment order dated 13.12.2004, it is observed that by oversight the assessee claim for deduction u/s.80G of �1,800/- was not given.’’.
Based on the remand report, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) allowed the claim u/s.80G of the Act. However, viz-a-viz
disallowance of interest on housing loan claimed under the head
income from house property and disallowance of bank interest and
audit fees totaling �19,525/- claimed under the head ‘’other sources’’,
ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that
assessee could not submit any evidence in support. He confirmed
these disallowances.
Now before me, ld. Authorised Representative strongly 4.
assailing the orders of the lower authorities submitted that viz-a-viz
ITA No. 2873/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:
interest on housing loan, assessee had produced certificate dated
30.05.2012 for interest of �2,57,544/- paid on a housing loan from
M/s. HDFC Bank. In so far as bank charges/ interest of �13,525/- and
audit fees of �6,000/- claimed under the head income from other
sources, submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that
these were incurred for earning interest income and allowable
u/s.57(iii) of the Act.
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 5.
supported the orders of the authorities below.
I heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the 6.
lower authorities. In so far as claim of interest on housing loan is
concerned a certificate dated 30.05.2012 from M/s.HDFC is available.
The contents of the certificate is reproduced hereunder:-
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that for the financial year April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012, the employee Rajashekhar Basappa Malagihal, has repaid the following amount in respect of the housing lona.
Principal Repayment : �28607 Interest Payment : �257544
Notes: 1. Principal repayment qualifies for deduction under section 80C. 2. Interest repaid on the loan is allowed as a deduction under section 24’’.
ITA No. 2873/Mds/2016 :- 5 -:
The claim is clearly allowable. In so far bank charges and interest of �13,525/- and Audit fees of �6,000/- claimed as expenditure u/s.57(iii) of the Act, admittedly assessee was unable to produce any evidence to show that such expenditure are incurred for earning the income returned under the head income from other sources. Thus while I delete the disallowance of interest of �1,50,000/- under the head income from house property, disallowance of �13,525/- and �6,000/- under the head income from other source are confirmed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 25th January, 2017, at Chennai.
Sd/- (अ�ाहम पी. जॉज�) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai �दनांक/Dated: 25th January, 2017 KV आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 6. गाड� फाईल/GF