Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH,KOLKATA
Before: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini
These appeals preferred by the assessee emanate from the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in short [ Ld. CIT(A)], 9, Kolkata dated 31-12-2015, 22-01-2015 & 17-12-2015 on the following respective grounds:- Grounds of Appeal preferred for the A.Y 2008-09 (by the assessee
1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.
2. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in not considering the fact that the reason recorded u/s s. 148(2) ought to have been intimated to the assessee in absence of such intimation, the assessment is liable to be quashed .
3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and not considering the fact that the entire claim of interest Rs.787,743/- should not have disallowed at least Rs.1,50,000/-being limit ought to have been allowed u/s s. 24(b) of the IT. Act, the action is therefore, arbitrary, unwarranted, perverse and illegal.
4. For that the interest u/s. 234B charged mechanically is wrong & illegal. 5. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.
Grounds of Appeal preferred for the A.Y 2009-10 (by the assessee
1. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) is wrong in dismissing the appeal, thus sustain the disallowance of interest Rs.17,16,534/- claimed u/s 24(b) of the IT. Act, 1961.
2. For that without prejudice to ground no. 1 the interest of Rs.150,000/- is to be allowed u/s. 24(b) of the IT. Act. 3. For that the evidences collected and produced may be considered in deciding the appeal. 4. For that the rental income shown on cash basis Rs.265,310/- but estimated at Rs.300,000/- which is wrong, unjustified and illegal. 5. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.
Grounds of Appeal preferred for the A.Y 2011-12 (by the assessee
1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, perverse and illegal.
2. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.IT.(A) was wrong in sustaining the disallowance of interest Rs.19,47,628/ - paid to HDFC Bank u/ s. 24(b) of the IT. Act, 1961, but it was wholly disallowed, the action is therefore, arbitrary, unwarranted, perverse and illegal.
3. For that there being no penalty appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) conclusion in 3 282/k/15 & 590/k/16 Mohammed Azhar confirming the penalty appeal is wrong, perverse and illegal.
4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the rental income estimated levy the A.O. at Rs.144,000/- against Rs. 14,400/- is wrong and without any positive evidence, therefore, the entire addition should be deleted.
5. For that the interest u/s. 234B & 234C charged mechanically is wrong & illegal.
For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.
Now we take up the appeal for the AY 2009-10 ( by the assessee).
Ground nos. 1 to 3 are similar in nature and shall be dealt with collectively herein. These grounds relate to contention of the assessee against the disallowance of claim of interest of Rs. 17,16,534/-, which was claimed u/s. 24(b) of the Act.
The facts of the case are that the AO found that the assessee had claimed interest of Rs. 17,16,534/- on account of house building loan u/s. 24(b) of the Act During the assessment proceedings the AO asked the assessee to furnish the documents/details i.e date of acquisition/completion of house property along with supporting registration deed/certificate etc., date and amount of loan taken along with loan sanction order, evidence/document with regard to utilization of the said loan and relevant bank statement with regard to receipt/repayment of loan and interest thereon, but the assessee failed to produce the same. As per provision of section 24(b), deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- is admissible, if the house property is acquired or completed with capital borrowed within 3 years from the end of the financial year in which the capital was borrowed for the purpose of acquisition/construction of house property. Though the assessee claimed that the loan was taken from HDFC Bank, but no 4 282/k/15 & 590/k/16 Mohammed Azhar supporting documents/details were furnished. During the appellate proceedings also, the ld.AR relied upon the grounds of appeal/ statement of facts only but no details/documents were furnished to support the claim of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) in his order found that since there is now new evidence/material/document on record for consideration, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) found that there is no infirmity in the order of the AO and he confirmed the order of the AO.
6. That at the time of hearing before us the ld.AR for the assessee has filed certificate of principal & interest – 1st April ’08 to 31st Mar’09, statement of claiming of deduction on interest payable issued by Standard Chartered Bank and relevant documents supporting his claim. Before us he prayed that the said details along with the certificate as filed may be set aside back to the file of the AO for his fresh adjudication on the basis of said certificates/details being filed.
The ld.DR did not oppose to the stand taken by the ld.AR for the assessee and agreed on the issue.
We have perused the case records, facts and circumstances of the case. We have heard the rival contentions and arrived at our considered view that the relevant certificates and evidences supporting the case of the assessee were not filed before the AO even before the ld. CIT(A). Since they were filed at the hearing stage before us the parameter of justice demands that these certificates and evidences supporting the claim of assessee being sent to the file of the AO for his fresh adjudication vis-à-vis these certificates/details and to arrive at a finding as per law while affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, this issue is set aside back to the file of the AO for his
Ground no. 4 is not pressed by the ld.AR for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. Hence, the same is dismissed.
Ground no.5 is general in nature and needs no adjudication.
This appeal of assessee in for the AY 2009-10 is allowed for statistical purpose.
AY 2008-09 (by the assessee)
Ground no. 3 relates to the same issue as discussed in ground nos. 1 to 3 in for the AY 2009-10(by the assessee). Therefore, the same decision has also been taken for this ground also. Therefore, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground no. 2 is not pressed by the ld.AR for the assessee before us at the time of hearing. Hence, it is dismissed.
Ground nos. 1 & 5 are general in nature. Hence, no adjudication is required.
Ground no. 4 is consequential in nature. Hence, no adjudication is required.
This appeal of assessee in AY 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground no. 2 is the same as discussed in for the AY 2009-10(by the assessee). Therefore, the same decision has also been taken for this ground also. Therefore, the ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground nos. 3 & 4 are not pressed by the ld. AR for the assessee. Therefore, the same are dismissed.
Ground nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature. Therefore, needs no adjudication.
Ground no. 5 is consequential in nature. Hence, no adjudication is required.
This appeal of assessee in for the AY 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10-02-2017