SUDHAKAR S. MODY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer in rejecting deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 24(b) of the I.T. Act.

We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee had purchased a flat from Marathon Realty Limited by availing loan from IDBI Bank. The assessee claimed deduction of interest to the extent of ` 1,50,000/- u/s. 24(b) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce completion certificate indicating completion of the flat during the financial year under consideration. Since the assessee did not furnish the same, the Assessing Officer disallowed claim of interest made u/s. 24(b) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee did not furnish completion certificate from the appropriate authority.

Learned AR submitted that the assessee entered into an agreement to purchase a flat on 8.9.2004. Flat was ready by October 2006 and the soft possession of the flat was given in October 2006 itself. Final possession of the flat was given to the assessee on 24.3.2007. Learned AR submitted that the assessee brought these facts to the notice of the learned CIT(A), vide his letter dated 7.11.2012, wherein the assessee also attached a certificate issued by the Cooperative Housing Society. Learned AR submitted that the assessee has taken possession of the flat and has thus complied with the second proviso to section 24 of the Act.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee did not furnish completion certificate from the appropriate authority and hence possession of the flat was not conclusively proved.

Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions made by learned AR. A careful perusal of the second proviso to section 24 would show that the assessee should acquire or complete construction within three years from the end of financial year in which the capital was borrowed. In the instant case, the assessee has furnished certificate from the Cooperative Society to show that the possession of the flat was taken in October 2006 and March 2007. Further, the proviso nowhere states that the assessee should furnish completion certificate from the appropriate (Government) authorities. In our view, the evidences furnished by the assessee sufficiently prove that the assessee has taken possession of the flat during the relevant financial year under consideration. Accordingly we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 24(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of ` 1,50,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s. 24(b) of the Act.

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