Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA
has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 against impugned appellate order dated 02/06/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053536130(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under:
“1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the rejection of claim made u/s 24 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of borrowed capital for the purpose of purchase of house property against the income chargeable under the head "income from house property"
That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition under the head "income from house property" in respect of same property on which interest was paid by the appellant for purchase thereof and has been not allowed as a deduction.
That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had voluntarily offered the income from house property against which claim for interest on borrowed capital in respect of interest on loan taken was made by the appellant which claim was statutory Assessment year:2013-14 2
allowable more particularly when the income from house property had been subjected to tax.
That the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the rejection of claim of the appellant merely on surmises and conjecture and estimate and his wishful thinking without considering the material placed by the appellant in support of claims which was on record.
That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate the fact that the appeal decided by him has already been decided by C.I.T. (Appeals), N.F.A.C., Delhi vide order dated 20.03.2023 in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10068002 and therefore the same appeal proceedings are infructuous and appellate order is liable to be cancelled.”
(B) At the time of hearing before us, learned Counsel for the assessee intimated at the outset that a separate appeal vide had already been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 02/06/2023 of the learned CIT(A). Thus, he submitted, this appeal was superfluous. The learned CIT (D.R.) for Revenue also agreed with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the assessee.
(C) In view of the foregoing, and as this appeal is superfluous, the same is consigned to records.
(D) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 10/09/2024)