DURAISAMY SENTHIL KUMAR,ERODE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 597/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 June 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)3 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 found that the assessee's claim for interest deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- on a self-occupied property was allowable under Section 24 of the Act. The AO had rightly allowed this claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interest on a self-occupied house property. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed this claim. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, stating the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263 when the AO had correctly allowed the interest deduction on a self-occupied property as per Section 24.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24,Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 11.06.2024Pronounced: 11.06.2024

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the Revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, in Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1061308989(1) dated 22.02.2024. The assessment was framed by the Additonal/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi for the - 2 - 2018-19 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 12.04.2021.

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of revision order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act revising the assessment for the reason that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction of interest amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- u/s.24 of the Act and allowed by the AO and hence, AO’s order is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The AO while framing assessment has specifically allowed the claim of assessee of Rs.2,00,000/- from ‘income from house property’ as the assessee was having a self- occupied house property. We have gone through the facts of the case and noted that the assessee is having two house, one from where he has declared rental income of one-halfth share at Rs.90,000/- and claimed standard deduction of Rs.27,000/- and thereby gross income from house property was declared at Rs.63,000/-. This let out property is scheduled at 14/16, Muthurangam Street, Erode. Further, another property which is self-

- 3 - Rs.8,91,726/- is house property constructed at Site No.3, Survey No.1203/1-6, 1202/5/1, Door 1, Gandhiji Stree-3, Kollampalayam, Erode. Against this house property, assessee has restricted his claim of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s.24 of the Act. This is an allowable claim and assessee has rightly claimed and AO has rightly allowed. The revision initiated by the PCIT and the revision order passed by PCIT is without any basis and hence, we quash the revision order and allow the appeal of assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 11th June, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →