Barla Satyanarayana, Rajahmundry V. The ITO Ward-3, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry

ITA 22/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 2225314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM ITA NO.22/VIZAG/2012 : ASST.YEAR 2004-2005 SRI BARLA SATYANARAYANA PROP : DIVYA EARTH MOVERS D.NO.72-23-4, CYCLONE COLONY LALACHERUVA, RAJAHMUNDRY. PAN : AGGPB6469G. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 RAJAHMUNDRY. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N.HARI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.K.SINGH, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 27 .02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .02.2014 O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY (AM) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), RAJAHMUNDRY, DATED 09.09.2011. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PARA 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH ARE EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE :- THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN IN DIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM HIRING OF EXCAVATORS, FILED RETURN OF I NCOME ON 14.02.2005 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.80,960/- BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,73,909/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.1,61,8 35/- ON BANK LOANS. ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE E NTIRE INTEREST AS THE LOANS ARE ALLEGEDLY USED TO PURCHASE OF AGRICUL TURAL LANDS. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE AO FOR A.Y.2003-04, WHEN SI MILAR QUERY WAS RAISED, ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT THE LOANS FROM B ANKS WERE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HEN CE, THE ENTIRE INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IN REPLY, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT OUT OF THE INTEREST DEBITED O F RS.1,28,248/-, RS.36,070/- PERTAINS TO INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN AN D IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FROM H OUSE PROPERTY ITA NO.22/VIZAG/2012. SRI BARLA SATYANARAYANA. 2 INCOME. ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH THIS CLAIM, FILED A RE VISED STATEMENT DTD. 13.12.2006 SHOWING LOSS OF RS.36,070/- FROM HO USE PROPERTY. ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO CLAIM THE REMAINING INTEREST AS INTEREST FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THUS, IN THE REVISED STATEMENT, INCOME FROM BUSINESS IS SHOWN AS RS.1,17,020/- AND AFTER REDUCI NG THE LOSS OF RS.36,070/- FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.80 ,956/- IS ADMITTED AS TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS THE SAME AS DECLA RED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWIN G INTEREST CLAIM OF RS.1,28,248/- AND ALLOWING INTEREST ON HOU SING LOAN AT RS.36,070/-. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING OF THIS AP PEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDON ED. NO CONDONATION PETITION IS FILED. ON MERITS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REPEATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 5.1 IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC PETITION SEEKING F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. ON MERI TS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON U/S 24, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT [284 ITR 323] HELD THAT CLAIM, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE ONLY BY WAY OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. COMING TO THE ENHANCEMENT, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SECURED OVERDRAFT LOAN WAS UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION OF THE HOUSE. NO EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BE FORE US ALSO. ITA NO.22/VIZAG/2012. SRI BARLA SATYANARAYANA. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM; DATED : 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. DEVDAS* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY . 4. CIT(A) RAJAHMUNDRY . 5. DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM