Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMARMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2017-18 Bhaveshkumar Vinodbhai Patel The ACIT, बनाम Asian Parivar Circle, Himatnagar -383 001 / Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road Gujarat v/s. Mahavirnagar Himatnagar – 383 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN:AJEPP 8838 I (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR & Shri Gulab Thakor, AR Revenue by : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R
PER DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [CIT(A)] vide order dated 19/04/2023 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal
taken by the assessee are as under:-
1. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 of the Act passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Bhaveshkumar Vinodbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18
2. In law and in the facts and circumstances in the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding addition of Rs. 7,58,826/ made in order passed u/s 143(3) on account of disallowance of excess interest on loan taken from Kotak Bank, claimed by the appellant while computing income from house property.
3. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his e-return of income on 12/03/2018 for the year under consideration. Declaring total income of Rs.19,36,140/-. The assessee is having in respect of income for rented property against which the assessee has claimed 50% of the loan interest u/s.24 of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Assessing Officer recomputed the income from house property restricting the deduction of interest to 20% on the ground that the housing loan was sanctioned to 5 persons.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO as the assessee has not submitted any details to substantiate the claim of 50%. The similar matter has come up before the AO in the AY 2016-17 and during the course of proceedings u/s.148 of the Act, after due examination ,the interest claimed by the assessee has been allowed. It was also brought to our notice that the similar allowance has been made by the Revenue Authorities in the subsequent year. It is also a fact on record that the repayments have been made by the assessee. Hence, keeping in view, the orders of the Revenue Authorities for the earlier years as well as the succeeding years, we hold that no disallowance during the instant year is called for. Bhaveshkumar Vinodbhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18