Hemlata Mahesh Shah, Baroda V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1764/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5908 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEP SHAH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1764/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO.1764/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 HEMLATA MAHESH SHAH, .... ............................ APPELLANT SHAH JAHAN BUNGALOW, OPP. SEVASI SCHOOL, B/H. JASPER APARTMENT, GOTRI SEVASI ROAD, SEVSI, BARODA 391 101. [PAN : AFCPS 3197 L] . VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BAODA. .............RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY DEEPSHAH FOR THE APPELLANT ALOK KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 27.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 19.03.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 26 TH APRIL 2016 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER), FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN WRONGLY DENIED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,50,000/-, IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING BO RROWING, UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,50,000/- TOWARDS INTEREST ON HOUS ING LOAN, THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY RUPAL SHAH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HOUSING LOAN WAS IN THE NAME OF RUPAL SHAH, AND, IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS, AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO RUPAL SHAH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THESE FACTS, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 24(B). AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND O BSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECOR DS AND SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINS T THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/-, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN FOR HOUSING PUR POSE AS THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BY DR. RUPAL SHAH IN HER NAME AND THE SAME CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ITA NO.1764/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE HOUSING LOAN WAS SANC TIONED BY TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD. TO DR. RUPAL SAMIR SHAH. IN THE SANCTI ON LETTER, SMT. HEMLATA MAHESHBHAI SHAH, SAMIR MAHESHBHAI SHAH, SAMIT SURGI TECH PVT. LTD. AND SHRI MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI SHAH HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS CO-BORR OWERS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF LOAN SANCTION AMOUNTED TO RS.1.92 CRORES. THE CE RTIFICATE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN ALSO ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DR. RUPAL SAMIR SHAH ALO NG WITH OTHER CO-BORROWERS. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO RESTRICTION IN OBTAINING HOUSI NG LOAN IN THE JOINT NAME BUT THE CONDITION OF SECTION 24(B) HAVE TO BE SATISFIED. TH E APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE WAS ACTUALLY PURCHA SED OR CONSTRUCTED IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED T O PROVE WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THAT THE HOUSING LOAN WAS ACTUALLY UTILIZ ED FOR INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE LEGALLY OWNED BY HER. MERELY PASSING OF ENTRIES IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CLAIMING ANY STATUTORY DEDUCTION UND ER THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT REQUISITE CONDITION FOR CLAIMING THE INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN ARE NOT SATISFIED AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINED. THUS, APPELLANT FAILS IN RESPECT OF GROU ND NO.1. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LE GAL POSITION. 6. I FIND THAT, AS EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MA DE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS EXTRACTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A CO-BORROWER IN THE RECORD S OF TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, AND, AS SUCH, THE MERE FACT THAT PRINCIPAL BORROWER HAD PAID INTEREST TO THE TCHFL, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE PRINCIPAL DUE CREDIT FOR THE SAME, CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WHAT REMAINS THE UNDISPUTED FACTUAL POSI TION IS THAT THERE WAS A BORROWING FOR HOUSE FINANCE, AND ASSESSEE WAS A CO-BORROWER FOR THE SAM E, AND THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE SAID BORROWING. THESE FACTS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW , ENTITLE ASSESSEE TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(B). I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE IMPUGNED D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 24(B). THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD