Deepak Vasant Kunjeer, Pune V. DCIT, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 2211/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79779 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: M R BHAGWAT
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) DEPAK VASANT KUNJEER, C/O M/S VASANT RAMCHANDRA KUNJEER, GULTEKDI, MARKET YARD, PUNE 411 037. PAN : ABGPK1967M . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, PUNE. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. M. R. BHAGWAT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. P. L. PATHADE DATE OF HEARING : 21-03-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-04-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR TWO DIFFE RENT ASSESSMENT YEARS OF 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AND SINCE THEY INVOLVE CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES, THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CON SOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE-UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 20.10.2011 WHICH, IN T URN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 29.12.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FIRSTLY, IN RELATION TO AN ADDITION OF RS.15,48,596/- OUT OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE AND SECONDLY, IN RELATION TO AN ADDITION OF RS.2,06,428 /- OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 MOTOR CARS. THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATI ON ON MOTOR CARS HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ACCORDING T HE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. IN RELATION TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,48,596/- OU T OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INTER-ALIA ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN LANDS AND RENTING OF BUSINESS PREMISES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSES SING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.15, 48,596/- WHEREAS THERE WAS A DEBIT BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF RS.77 ,86,956/- AND ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES OF RS.135.86 L ACS. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCES FOR LAND PURCHASE OF RS .1,00,39,060/-. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO NCLUDED THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATING TO MONEYS REQUIRED FOR PERSONAL WITHDRAWALS, INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES AND AD VANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. HE, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.15,48,596/- WA S FOR FUNDS WHICH WERE DIVERTED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA, SUBMITTE D THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF UNSECU RED LOANS, CURRENT LIABILITIES ETC. WHICH WERE MORE THAT THE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCE S MADE AND ACCORDINGLY NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A STATEMENT OF UTILIZATION OF LOAN FUNDS, A COPY OF WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED I N THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 50-51 FILED BEFORE US. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE W AS THAT THE INTEREST WAS PAID TO THE BANK ON THE FUNDS BORROWED WHICH WERE P ARTLY USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND PARTLY FOR ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL P ROPERTY IN A BUILDING GIGA SPACE AND INCOME WHEREFROM WAS DECLARED AS RENTALS . IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.20,57,3 72/- TO THE BANK DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS.12,31,533/- WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME WHILE THE BALANCE WAS C LAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE OUT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OFFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 PROPERTY. ALL THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS DID NOT F IND FAVOUR THAT THE CIT(A) WHO HAS SINCE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. NOT BEING SA TISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN UNJU STLY BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN THIS REGARD A REFERENCE HA S BEEN MADE TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED WHEREIN COMPLETE DETAILS INCLUDING THE S TATEMENT OF UTILIZATION OF LOANS HAVE BEEN PLACED. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEE N INVITED TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IS PLACED THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS LOANS AND ADVANCES MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REFERENCE H AS ALSO BEEN MADE TO THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING INTERES T-FREE UNSECURED LOANS AND OTHER ADVANCES, AND CURRENT LIABILITIES WHICH D OES NOT CARRY ANY INTEREST. IT IS SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE NON-INTEREST B EARING FUNDS ARE ENOUGH TO COVER THE DEBIT BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS W ELL AS THE OTHER INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES MADE AND THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE U TILITIES AND POWER LTD., (2009)313 ITR 340 (BOM), NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T CAN BE MADE BECAUSE IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES HAV E BEEN MADE OUT OF NON- INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THE ADVANCES, E.G. ADVANCE FOR PUR CHASE OF LAND, ARE FOR A BUSINESS PURPOSE, AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS CALLED FOR. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. FIRSTLY, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RS.1,00,39,060/- HAS BEEN GIVEN AS INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES, WHICH IS AGAINST PURCHASE OF LAND. ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND ENOUGH WEIGHT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE HE IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 LANDS, THUS THE AFORESAID ADVANCES ARE FOR ACQUIRIN G OF A STOCK-IN-TRADE, NAMELY, LANDS. NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE PROP OSITION THAT INTEREST INCURRED IN RELATION TO FUNDS DEPLOYED FOR ACQUIRING OF STOC K-IN-TRADE IS ALLOWABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ON THIS COUNT, WE FIND NO REASONS TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 9. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFER RED TO INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES OF RS.1,35,86,808/- DETAILED OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN TERMS OF THIS, A SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNT IS OF RS.61,01,546/- GIVEN TO M/S SQUARE FEET REALITIES PVT. LTD. IN TH IS CONTEXT, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CONCERN WAS A COMPANY IN WH ICH ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE INTERESTED AND THE SAID CONCERN WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN LAND. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OU T THAT THE SAID ASPECT OF THE MATTER COULD NOT BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES WITH THE SUPPORTING MATERIAL BUT THE FACT POSITION IS THAT IT WAS ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS THAT THE SAID CONCERN HAD ENTERED INTO A LAND SALE TRANS ACTION WHICH HAD RESULTED IN PROFITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT T HE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION, IF THIS MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH APPRAISAL OF THE FACT-SITUATION. THIRDLY, AS SESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF RS.38,21,975/- BEING ADVANCES PAID FOR A CQUISITION OF FLATS AS PER DETAILS AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THIS ASPEC T, THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) WAS MERITED SINCE THE SAME WAS FOR PURCHASE OF FLATS, WHICH ARE A STOCK-IN-TRADE O F BUSINESS AND THUS THE AFORESAID ADVANCES CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ADVANCE D IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE ON THE AFORESAID TWO ASPECTS. ON BOTH THE ASPECTS, IN OUR VIEW, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE IT I NVOLVES CERTAIN FACTUAL APPRECIATION. OSTENSIBLY, ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSIN ESS OF TRADING IN LANDS AND RENTING OF BUSINESS PREMISES. THE PLEA OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE ADVANCES ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 HAVE BEEN MADE FOR ACQUISITION OF FLATS FOR THE PUR POSES OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE OUT-RIGHTLY REJECTED. EVEN THE ADVANCES MADE TO SI STER CONCERN M/S SQUIRE FEET REALITIES PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE OUT-RIGHTLY REJE CTED AS BEING FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS PRIMA-FACIE D EMONSTRATED THAT THE SAID CONCERN IS ALSO IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINES S. SO HOWEVER, THE AFORESAID PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE VE RIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOR THAT PURPOSE WE DEEM IT FIT AND PRO PER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEEDLES S TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREFORE PASS AN ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDING WITH LA W ON THIS ASPECT. 11. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSITION LAID D OWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND PO WER LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE AFORESAID CONTROVERSY AS PER LAW. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.192/PN/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. NOW, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 27.07.2012 WHICH, IN T URN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 14. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.36,60,139/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE BY INVOK ING SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THIS YEAR IS MORE OR LESS IS SIMILAR TO THE ASPECT THAT HAS BEEN SET-ASIDE BY US TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 2008-09 (SUPRA) IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT ON THIS ASPECT ALSO THE MATTER BE SET-ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. IN DEFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSIO NS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, WE HEREBY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE- VISIT THE CONTROVERSY IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DIRECTION S IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA) AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER, DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. THUS, ON THIS GROUND, ASSESSEE S UCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. THE SECOND GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.7,09,597/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THIS REGARD, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT GIGA SPACE WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT. THE RENTAL INCOME WAS DULY DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE. SO HOWEVER, WHILE DECLARING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY DID NOT CLAIM DEDU CTION OF RS.7,09,597/- TOWARDS THE INTEREST PAID TO BACK FOR ACQUISITION O F SUCH PROPERTY. THE CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHO UT ANY DISCUSSION. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CLAIM WAS RAISED BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN NEGATED. AS PER THE CIT(A), SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REVISED RETURN HAVING BEEN FILED, SU CH CLAIM WAS NOT ENTERTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC ). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID CLAIM HAS BEEN NEGATED. 16. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID CLAIM WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT TO BE MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THOUGH IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SUC H CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME STOOD ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT HA S ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NEGATING THE CLAIM BECAUSE THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (IND IA) LTD. (SUPRA) DID NOT RESTRICT THE POWERS OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO AD MIT A FRESH CLAIM AND THEREFORE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID CLAIM BE A DMITTED AND ALLOWED. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF INTERES T OF RS. 7,09,597/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE SAME WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DEALT WITH THIS CLAIM AT ALL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE CIT(A) H AS REJECTED THE CLAIM BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). AS PER THE CIT(A), NO FRESH CLAIM COULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OTHER THAN THR OUGH FILING OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, WE FIND THAT IN SO FAR AS THE RAISING OF SUCH PLEA BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS CONCERNE D, THE SAME WAS MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE PARITY OF REASONING LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD T HAT A FRESH CLAIM CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IF IT INVOLVE S A POINT OF LAW AND THE RELEVANT FACTS NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT PUT ANY FETTERS ON T HE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WHICH WERE HIT HERTO NOT MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CONNECTION, FOR JUDGEME NT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL) ITA NOS.192 & 2211/PN/2012 A.YS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THE AFORESAID, WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT LACK IN BONA-FIDES A ND IT IS A MERE INADVERTENCE BECAUSE SIMILAR CLAIM WAS VERY MUCH BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND WHICH STANDS ALLOWED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF INTEREST OF RS.7,09,597/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND DESE RVES TO BE ACCEPTED. WE HOLD SO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SE T-ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE AS PER LAW. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALSO ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.2211/PN/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 20. RESULTANTLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH APRIL, 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE