FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM V. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(1), KOCHI

ITA 376/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Francis Liston, an employee of BPCL, Kochi Refinery, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the assessment made by the ITO, which denied him the claim of interest on a housing loan. The interest was denied on the grounds that the house, leased to the company and used as rent-free accommodation by Liston, did not qualify for interest deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found merit in Liston's argument that the house should be considered self-occupied for the purpose of the deduction, as the company's self-lease scheme treated the house differently from a typical self-acquired property.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712608 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 376/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Francis Liston, .......... Appellant Badge No.81922 BPCL, Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Ernakulam, Kerala [PAN: AAUPL 4921 B] vs. ITO, Non-Corp Ward-2(1), .......... Respondent Kochi. Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam [CIT(A)] dated 18.03.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from salary. The return of income for the AY 2011-12 was filed on 30/06/2011 declaring income of Rs. 5,58,110/- and claimed refund of Rs. 14,749/-. The ITO, Non-Corp. Ward- Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. 2(1), Kochi (for short, 'AO') issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 22/03/2016. In response to the notice issued u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income on 08/06/2016 declaring the same income as declared in the original return of income. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 28/07/2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 6,36,460/-. While doing so, the AO denied the claim of interest on housing loan of Rs. 78,356/- by holding that interest u/s. 24(b) cannot be allowed when the assessee had let out to the employer, which in turn was allotted on rent free accommodation to the assessee himself. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that when the assessee is under the self lease scheme policy of the company-employer, the residential house owned by the employee was leased out to the company and the assessee was in receipt of lease rent and such house shall not be treated as self acquired house. However, rental income, the policy has been discontinued by the company w.e.f. 01/07/2010 and interest is allowable on self-occupied house. It is further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) in other employees’ cases allowed the claim for Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 676/Coch/2024 Meat Products of India Ltd. deduction of interest on housing loan as self-occupied house. I find force merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the house allotted to him shall not be treated as self-acquired house. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 31st July, 2025 vr/- Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "