DR. AJAY SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 January 2016AY 2009-106 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the housing loan interest deduction. It allowed the depreciation claim as the assessee had continuously claimed it and no valid reason for disallowance was provided.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for interest paid on a housing loan and depreciation on equipment given on hire. The Assessing Officer disallowed these claims, treating a new flat as let out and disallowing depreciation on equipment.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction for interest on housing loan and depreciation on equipment given on hire.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24,Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. S. SYAL & SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 05.01.2016Pronounced: 07.01.2016

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 01/03/2013 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-XXVIII, New Delhi.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:-

“1. Ld. Assessing Officer has passed Assessment Order which is erroneous, is against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and is also against facts and circumstances of the case, therefore is illegal and bad in law.

2. The Lower Authorities have grossly erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.6,10,225/- as interest Paid on Housing Loan while calculating the income from House Property on Notional Basis which is against facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The Lower Authorities have grossly erred in not allowing claim of Depreciation u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.48,244/- on the Equipment given on Hire to Sheetla Hospital and Eye Institute Private Ltd which is against facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

The assessee has purchased a new Flat No. 1905-A during the year which could not be occupied as Assessee wanted to shift in this flat after Holi Festival. The same was not given on rent as assessee planned to shift in the new flat and wanted to sell the old flat in which he was residing. Assessing Officer has calculated notional rent of the new flat for 7 months and added back Rs.2,08,250/- as income from house property. Assessing Officer called for all documents to ascertain source of the new flat. The documentary proof filed with Assessing Officer by the assessee that assessee took loan for purchasing new flat and paid interest of Rs.6,10,225/-. Bank Certificate in this respect was duly placed in the file of Ld. Assessing Officer.

3. The Assessee had given its equipments on hire to Sheetla Hospital and Eye Institute Pvt. Ltd in year 1999-2000 and since then has been receiving rental on these equipments. He has been claiming deduction of depreciation from year to year. During this year also the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV value of the previous year. Assessing Officer has disallowed not this claim.

4.

The ground against disallowance of interest Rs. 6,10,225/- on housing loan. The aassessee has two houses and both were self occupied. The assessee has not shown any income from the second house. The Assessing Officer has calculated deemed lettable value for the second property as taxable income. The assessee has not made any claim for deduction of interest on loan from the said property. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has not entertained any such issue in the order of assessment.

5.

The AR submitted that as the property is let out property and there was no show cause notice as related to interest paid to Rs. 6,10,225/- for the said property situated at Beverly Park, Gurgaon, therefore, the same should have not been added by the Assessing Officer.

6.

The DR submitted that there is only addition of 2,08,215/- and about the interest the assessee has not contested the same before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT (A).

7.

We have perused all the records and heard both the parties. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not looked into the aspect of whether the interest of Rs.6,10,225/- paid by the assessee was for the property situated at Beverly Park, Gurgaon. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the same and if the same is paid accordingly the deduction may be allowed to the assessee. As relates to the issue of depreciation the assessee was continuously claiming the same since 1991 and there is no reason stated by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT (A) that these equipments do not belong to the assessee. Therefore, Ground No. 2 is remanded back to the Assessing Officer and Ground No. 3 is allowed in favour of the assessee. The Ground No. 1 and 4 are general in nature hence dismissed.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 07th of January 2016.

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →