DEEPSHIKHA SRIVASTAVA, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR-41, MUMBAI

ITA 1903/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2732 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG SR
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT I.T.A. NO.1903/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ) DEEPSHIKHA SRIVASTAVA, 601-701, OBEROY SKY HEIGHTS PLOT NO.120, 3 RD CROSS LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI-400 053. PAN:AGGPS7552R VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.41, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 6 TH FLOOR, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MR. ANKUR GARG, SR.AR O R D E R THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. I FIND FROM THE ORD ER SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHOSEN TO APPEAR WHEN THE APP EAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING EARLIER. I THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL, ON MERITS, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. AND ON THE BASIS OF THE RE CORD. 2. THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THE RETURN, IN ADDITI ON TO THE SALARY INCOME, SHE DECLARED LOSS OF RS.1,50,000/- UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LOSS CONSISTED OF THE INTEREST PAYMENT MADE ON LOAN TAKEN FROM HDFC BANK FOR ACQUI RING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT WINDERMERE APARTMENTS, ANDH ERI. SINCE IT WAS SELF-OCCUPIED, THE INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS. N IL AND DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED FOR INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,50,000/- AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTI ON 24(B) OF THE ACT. THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND MR.GURU SWARUP SRIVASTAVA. ON ITA NO.1903/MUM/09 2 VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT HE HAD ALSO CLAIMED LO SS OF RS.1,50,000/- UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY ON THE SAME BASIS AS WAS CLAIMED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE FLAT CAME OUT OF T HE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(B) CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE L OSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY, OVERRULING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO THE EFFECT T HAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE SECTION HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. ON APPEAL, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED AND HENCE THE PRESENT AP PEAL. 3. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AL AUTHORITIES AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED SENIOR D. R., I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES C LAIM. THERE IS ONLY ONE FLAT ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. A PPARENTLY IT WAS PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAD COM E ONLY OUT OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE. THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE NO COMPUTATION OF AN Y INCOME IN HER CASE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 24(B) IN HER ASSESSMENT. THE DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE HUSBAND. I T IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE OWNS A DEFINED SH ARE IN THE PROPERTY. IT IS MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THAT THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HER HUSBAND WITHOUT ANY FUNDS HAVING COME FROM THE ASSE SSEE. ON THESE FACTS, I AM UNABLE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE VIE W TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES VIS-A-VIS THE ASSESSEES C LAIM FOR ITA NO.1903/MUM/09 3 COMPUTING THE LOSS UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY AT RS.1, 50,000/-. I CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.19,755/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68. I FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HAVING NOT PRESS ED THE GROUND AGAINST THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TA KE THE GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE CIT(A). I ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE GROUND AS MISCONCEIVED. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORD ER AS TO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON T HIS DAY 9 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED 9 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SOMU COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CENT.IV, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-CENT.III, MUMBAI 5. THE DR SMC BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI