Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.01.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2008-09.
The assessee has taken as many as 7 grounds of appeal
. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated that as per the instructions of his client, he does not press ground Nos.1 to 3. Ground Nos.1 to 3 are therefore dismissed as not pressed.
3. Vide ground No.4 to 7 of the appeal, the assessee has agitated the disallowance of interest paid on housing loan under section 24(b) of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) noted that besides a self occupied house, the assessee also owning a flat in Bandra (W), Mumbai. The AO, therefore, treated the said property as 2 Shri Hussein Ismail Dawoodani deemed to be let out and estimated the annual rental value of the property at Rs.2,68,923/- and after allowing standard deduction at the rate of 30%, the AO taxed the net property income of Rs.1,88,246/-.
4. In appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the assessee was joint owner of the flat in question along with his son Mr. Ahmed Hussein Dawoodani. The property was purchased by taking loan from City Bank of Rs.28.75 lakhs on which interest of Rs.680198/- was paid. It was further contended that out of this interest amount, 50% was payable by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, claimed that 50% of interest was deserved to be allowed under section 24(b) of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee had not furnished sufficient evidence to show that the interest cost was borne by the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has invited our attention to the application dated 29.02.16 under rule 29 for additional evidence. The Ld. A.R. through this application has sought to produce certain documents such as certificate from City Bank confirming that the loan was sanctioned in the joint name i.e. in the name of assessee and in the name of his son, copy of acknowledgement of income tax return for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 along with details of computation of income of Mr. Ahmed Hussein Dawoodani, copy of interest certificate issued by City Bank and copy of assessment order, copy of assessment order in the case of his son Mr. Ahmed Hussein Dawoodani and other relevant documents. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that these documents were not available with the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Even the AO has also not called for these documents. Considering the above request of the assessee and the nature of documents which are in the shape of bank certificates, copies of acknowledgement/income tax returns etc., we are of the view that interest of justice will be well served if the said documents are allowed to be produced as additional evidence by the assessee. We accordingly set aside the impugned
3 Shri Hussein Ismail Dawoodani order and restore the matter to the file of the AO with opportunity to the assessee to produce the additional evidences before the AO and direct that the AO will decide the issue relating to the deduction/disallowance under section 24(b) after considering the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that the AO will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case.
With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2016.