IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1426(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 09) SHRI ANAND KULKARNI, NO. 20, K. G. COLONY, 1 ST CROSS, 9 TH MAIN, G M PALYA, BANGALORE 560075 PAN : AAVPL2336A APPELLANT VS THE ITO, (CPC), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI G. MANOJ KUMAR, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 14-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -09-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) - 12 BENGALURU DATED 17.05.2016 FOR A. Y. 2008 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 4 GROUNDS BU T THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT GRANTING DEDUCTION OF REDU CED AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 150,,,0/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS. 35 1,189/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. LE ARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT IN THE ORIGINAL INTIMATION U/S 143 (1) DATED ITA NO. 1426(BANG) 2016 2 26.03.2010, THE LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS TOTALL Y IGNORED AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154, THE A.O. ALLOWED SET OFF OF SUCH LOSS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY TO RS. 150,000/-. AS PER THE STATEMENT OF INCOME AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THERE IS RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 60,000/- AND AFTER ALLOWING DE DUCTION OF PROPERTY TAX PAID RS. 4,264/- AND 30% AS STANDARD DEDUCTION, NET INCOME BEFORE INTEREST IS RS. 39,016/- AND THERE IS CLAIM FOR INTEREST PAY MENT OF RS. 390,205/- RESULTING INTO LOSS UNDER THIS HEAD AT RS. 351,189/ - BUT THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER U/S 154 ALLOWED SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS. 150,00 0/- ONLY. IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THERE IS NO INTERE ST EXPENDITURE DEDUCTIBLE U/S 24. IT SEEMS THAT THE A.O. INVOKED 1 ST AND SECOND PROVISOS TO SECTION 24 BUT MISSED THIS ASPECT THAT THESE PROVISOS CAN BE I NVOKED IN THE CASE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS SELF OCCUPIED AS PROVIDED IN SECT ION 23 92). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT AND THEREFORE, THESE PROVISOS TO SECTION 24 CANNOT BE APPLIED. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THAT THE A.O. SHOULD ALLOW SET OFF OF TOTAL LOSS CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .09.2016 AM* ITA NO. 1426(BANG) 2016 3 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOE S TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER