IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1147/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI HANUBHAI R. SANGHANI, 5, SATYAM BUNGLOW, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380-015 V/S THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-9, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ARLPS4790I APPELLANT BY : SHRI KARAN SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 10 -01-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 -01-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, AHMEDABAD DATED 13.02.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008- 09. ITA NO1147-A HD-2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE LOAN PROCESSING CHARGES OF RS. 2,06,170/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SHARE PROFIT, INTEREST AND REMUNERATION FROM PARTNE RSHIP FIRMS, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTIES, INCOME FROM SHORT TERM 7 LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 2,06,170 TOWARDS LOAN PRO CESSING CHARGES FOR SBI LOAN AND HOME LOAN TAKEN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SELF O CCUPIED PROPERTY. THE A.O. WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT SUCH CHARGES ARE N OT ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE NEITHER UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME NOR FOR INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE A.O. DISALLOWED RS. 2,06,170/-. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE SAID CHARGED WERE PAID ON THE LOAN BORROWE D FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE BORROWINGS VIS--VIS PAY MENT OF PROCESSING CHARGES WHICH DID NOT IMPRESS UPON THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR CORRECTION OF BONA FIDE M ISTAKE OF TREATING THE INTEREST EXPENSES PAID TO KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK AND S TATE BANK OF INDIA AS A PART OF HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH ACTUALLY SHOULD HAVE B EEN DEDUCTED FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO1147-A HD-2015 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE. IT APPEARS THAT THE A .O. WAS CARRIED AWAY WITH THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN BORROWED FROM KOTA K MAHINDRA BANK AND STATE BANK OF INDIA FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND NOT P URCHASING HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE DEEM I T FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNI SH NECESSARY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 - 01- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 15 /01/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD