Shri.Akulu Nagaraj Gupta Subbaraju, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 2286/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7656 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2009-10 SHRI AKULU NAGARAJ GUPTA SUBBARAJU, NO. 28, CITI CENTRE, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AEOPS 9034C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 .0 8 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .08 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE 5 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMBINED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, BANGALORE DATED 20. 09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10. ALL THESE APP EALS WERE HEARD ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 11 TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN EACH YEA R BUT A COMMON GRIEVANCE IS RAISED IN ALL THE 5 YEARS REGARDING TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE U/S. 24B OF THE IT ACT. THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE IS RS. 1 2,61,165/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, RS. 11,16,912/- IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07, RS. 9,84,432/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, RS. 11,4 7,216/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RS. 11,80,957/- IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 7 IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL GROU NDS ALSO IN EACH OF ALL THESE YEARS AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELO W. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVE ERRED, IN LAW A ND IN FACTS, BY NOT CONSIDERING THE LOAN DOCUMENTS SUBMIT TED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AN D IN FACTS, BY CONSIDERING THAT THE LOAN WAS BORROWED FOR THE P URPOSE OF EXPANDING THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS, WHEN IN FACT, T HE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE LET OUT PROPER TY AND WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AN D IN FACTS, BY DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS ON TH E BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT REPAID THE LOAN BORROWED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD OF THE LOAN, WHEN IN FACT, THE LOAN FROM CORP BANK WAS BORROWED ON 16.01.2006 WHICH WAS BY WAY OF TAKING OVER OF LOAN FROM SBI DIRECTLY. ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 11 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AN D IN FACTS, BY DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID ON THE BASIS THAT THE INTEREST IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WITHOUT ACTUAL PAYMENT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AN D THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AND IN FACTS, BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL LOAN FROM KSFC WAS BORROWED ON 26.09.2000 AND THE SAME LOAN AMOUNT HAS BEEN USED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY ON 04.10.2000 AN D KSFC CLEARLY SANCTIONED THE LOAN ONLY FOR THE PURCH ASE OF THE LET OUT PROPERTY. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AN D IN FACTS, BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD INCURRED TOTALLY RS. 70,61,000/- TO ACQUIRE THE LET OUT PROPERTY BY TAKING LOAN FROM KSFC AND OTHER LENDERS AS PER T HE FINANCIALS WHICH WAS CLEARLY EVIDENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVE ERRED, IN FACTS AND IN LAW, BY HOLDING THAT THE LAS T INSTALMENT OF THE KSFC LOAN WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID ON JANUARY 20 05 AND THE APPELLANT WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM INTEREST ON LY UP TO JANUARY 2005 WITHOUT ACTUALLY APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT KSFC LOAN WAS NOT PAID AS PER THE ORIGINALLY AGREED SCHEDULE AND IT WAS PAID ONLY OUT OF THE LOAN FROM SBI. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVE ERRED, IN FACTS AND IN LAW, FAILED TO UNDERSTAND TH E SCOPE OF THE WORD 'BORROWED CAPITAL' IS WIDER THAN THE TERM 'MONEY' AND INCLUDES OVERDUE LOANS. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT COP Y OF LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 26.09.2000 FROM KARNATAKA STATE FINANC IAL CORPORATION (KSFC) IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 15 TO 19 OF PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH THE LOAN OF RS. 40 LAKHS WAS SANCTIONED TOWARDS PURCHAS E OF G-1, G-2 AND G-3 COMMERCIAL SPACE WHICH IS HAVING ESTIMATED COST OF RS. 58.60 LAKHS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 20 OF PAPER BOOK IS A FRESH SANCTION ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 11 LETTER ON 29.11.2000 FROM KSFC AS PER WHICH THE ADD ITIONAL TERM LOAN OF RS. 20 LAKHS WAS SANCTIONED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. THEREAFTER HE DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 84 OF PAPER BOOK WHERE THE SANCTION LETTER FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA DATED 31.03.2004 IS AVAILABLE R EGARDING SANCTION OF LOAN OF RS. 120 LAKHS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ON PAGE NO. 85 OF PAPER BOOK IS BANK STATEMENT OF SBI FOR THE PERIOD FROM 3 1.03.2004 TO 31.07.2004 AND FROM THE SAME, HE POINTED OUT THAT T HE LOAN OF RS. 60 LAKHS FROM KSFC WAS REPAID BY SBI ON 31.03.2004 OUT OF THIS LOAN SANCTIONED BY SBI OF RS. 120 LAKHS. HE SUBMITTED T HAT UNDER THESE FACTS, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE FRESH LOAN FROM SBI IS TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF EARLIER LOAN FROM KSFC AND THE EARLIER LOAN FROM KSFC IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 24B OF IT ACT . 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JU DGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT WHEN INTEREST PAID IS ON SUBSEQ UENT LOAN TAKEN FOR REPAYMENT OF EARLIER HOUSING LOAN, INTEREST U/S. 24 IS NOT ALLOWABLE:- A. ITO VS. SATYA CO. LTD. (19 ITD 596(CALCUTTA)) B. NAMAN KUMAR VS. CIT (221 TAXMAN 269) (PUNJAB & HARYANA) ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 11 6. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE PLACED REL IANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL AS REPORTED IN 139 TTJ 49 (LUCKNOW). HE FILED THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SATYA CO. LTD . (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE THAT IF SUBSEQUEN T LOANS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO REPAY THE ORIGINAL LOAN RAISED FOR THE PURCHASE OF HOUSING PROPERTY, THE INTEREST PAID ON SUBSEQUENT LOAN IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 24 FROM RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THA T THIS IS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 THA T IT WAS A SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE BOR ROWED THE LOAN FROM KSFC TO ACQUIRE A HOUSE PROPERTY AT HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE BORROWED FROM SBI AT LOW ER RATE OF INTEREST TO REPAY THE LOAN FROM KSFC AND TO SPEND FOR THE ALTER ATION, FURNISHING, CABLING, NETWORKING CIVIL WORK AND PARTITION ETC AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TENANT AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SBI HAD PAID THE AMOUNT TO KSFC TOWARDS THE LOAN AMOUNT AND THE SAME IS ALSO REFLECTING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SBI. ON PAGE NO. 2 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-06, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 11 UTILIZED THE LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION A ND REPAIR OF THE HOUSE AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24, INTEREST IN CURRED ON BORROWED CAPITAL IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IF THE CAPITAL IS BORROWE D ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION, RENEWAL OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUS E PROPERTY AND SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THESE REQUIREMEN TS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 12,61, 165/- TOWARDS INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL U/S. 24B OF THE ACT. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOAN FROM SBI IS FOR REPAY MENT OF HOUSING LOAN EARLIER BORROWED FROM KSFC IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, I EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH SIDES. AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE HAVING RENDERED IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. SATYA CO. LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT AS PER THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE PURCHASED A HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 2.45 LAKHS O N 22.06.1955 AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE MADE A BORROWING OF RS. 1 LAKH FROM GENERAL PRODUCE CO. LTD. ON DIFFERENT DATES AND RS. 1.50 LA KHS FROM MODEL MFG. CO. LTD. ON 27.06.1955. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 29.09.1955 , THE COMPANY REPAID THE LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH RECEIVED FROM GENERAL PRODUCE CO. LTD. OUT OF REFUND OF LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH FROM TULSIDAS KANOR IA & CO. TO WHOM THE COMPANY HAD ADVANCED MONEY ON LOAN IN EARLIER YEARS . THE LOAN OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS TAKEN FROM MODEL MFG. CO. LTD. WAS ALSO REPAID DURING THE ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 11 SAME YEAR OUT OF FUNDS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARE OF RS. 83,500/- REPAYMENT OF LOAN FROM TULSIDAS KANORI A & CO. OF RS. 38,000/-, LOAN TAKEN FROM A.K. KANORIA OF RS. 20,10 0/- AND OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 11,400/-. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ANY LOAN UNCONNECTED WITH ORIGINAL BORROWED CAPITAL IS NOT COVERED U/S. 24(1) OF THE IT ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS HELD THAT AN Y LOAN UNCONNECTED WITH SUCH BORROWED CAPITAL IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDU CTION OF INTEREST U/S 24. AS PER THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ORIGINAL BORROWED CAPITAL OF RS. 1 LAKH FROM GENERAL PRODUCE CO. LTD. WAS REP AID OUT OF REFUND OF LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH RECEIVED FROM TULSIDAS KANORIA & CO. TO WHOM THE COMPANY HAD ADVANCED MONEY ON LOAN IN EARLIER YEARS . HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THE REPAYMENT OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS OUT OF REPAYME NT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED WAS NOT OUT OF ANY FRESH BORROWING. SIMIL ARLY REPAYMENT OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS BEING LOAN TAKEN FROM MODEL MFG. CO. LTD . WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN FROM TULSI DAS KANORIA & CO. AND OTHERS AND ONLY RS. 20,100/- WAS REPAID OUT OF BORROWING FROM SHRI A.K. KANORIA. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL WAS 1973-74 WHEREAS THE REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN WAS REFLECTED IN 1955-56. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REPAYMEN T OF HOUSING LOAN IS OUT OF FRESH BORROWINGS AND HENCE IN THE FACTS OF PRESE NT CASE, IT CANNOT BE ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 8 OF 11 SAID THAT THE PRESENT BORROWING ON WHICH INTEREST I S CLAIMED U/S. 24 IS UNCONNECTED WITH THE BORROWED CAPITAL USED FOR ACQU IRING THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND HENCE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, OF TH IS TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8. NOW I EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND JUDGM ENT CITED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE BEING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NAMAN KUMAR VS. CIT(SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED TH E JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHEW KIS SEN BHATTER VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 89 ITR 61(SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT ONLY SIMPLE INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE AND NOT COMPOUND INTEREST. BY FOLLOWI NG THIS JUDGMENT, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT THA T INTEREST PAID ON INTEREST LEVIED BY BANK BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF I NSTALMENTS OF BORROWED CAPITAL TO BANK IS NOT QUALIFIED AS AN ADM ISSIBLE DEDUCTION AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOW ING THE BALANCE INTEREST AND ALLOWING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SIMPLE INTERE ST. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT, INTEREST ON INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWABLE BUT INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT OF BORROWED FUND WHICH WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOU SING PROPERTY IS ALLOWABLE. ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 9 OF 11 9. NOW I EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORD ER CITED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER I.E. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL(SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, ASSESSEE PURCHASED HOUSE PROPERTY OUT OF LOAN FROM HDFC AGAINST RBI BO NDS. WHEN THE RBI BONDS MATURED, THE ASSESSEE RAISED LOAN FROM RE LATIVES AND IDBI BANK TO REPAY THE HOUSING LOAN FROM HDFC BANK. THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN FROM RELATIV ES AND IDBI ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOAN TAKEN FROM HDFC WAS REPAID AND THERE REMAINS NO HOUSING LOAN ON SAID DATE. SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS D ELETED BY LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN WAS TO REPAY EA RLIER / ORIGINAL LOAN AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST ON SUBSEQUENT LOAN TAKE N FOR REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 24 OF IT ACT AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOUSING PROPERTY. ON APPEAL FROM THE D EPARTMENT, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND WHILE CO NFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO A CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 28 DATED 20.08.1969 WHEREIN IT WAS SPECIFIED THAT IF THE SEC OND BORROWING HAS REALLY BEEN USED TO REPAY THE ORIGINAL LOAN AND THI S FACT IS PROVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO, THE INTEREST PAID ON THE SE COND LOAN WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION U/S. 24(1)(VI) OF THE IT ACT . 10. WITH THE COMBINED READING OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER CI TED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S. SUNIL KUMAR ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 10 OF 11 AGARWAL(SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CITED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE RENDERED IN THE CA SE OF NAMAN KUMAR VS. CIT(SUPRA), IT COMES OUT THAT INTEREST ON SUBSE QUENT LOAN TO REPAY THE EARLIER HOUSING LOAN IS ALSO ALLOWABLE SUBJECT TO T HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. A. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBSEQUENT L OAN IS TO REPAY THE EARLIER HOUSING LOAN B. DEDUCTION ON INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE EXTE NT OF INTEREST ON EARLIER LOAN USED FOR ACQUIRING OR CONS TRUCTING THE HOUSING PROPERTY AND NOT ON THE UNPAID INTEREST ON SUCH EARLIER HOUSING LOAN OR SUBSEQUENT HOUSING LOAN TO REPAY THE EARLIER HOUSING LOAN. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF CIT(A) FOR ALL THE 5 YEARS AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE C IT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHOULD EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN LINE WITH ABOVE DISCUSSION AND DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN ON WHICH INTEREST IS BEING CLAIMED IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAYMENT OF EARLIER HOUSING LOAN AND SUCH CLAIM OF INTEREST SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL AMOUNT OF EARLIE R/NEW HOUSING LOAN USED FOR ACQUIRING / CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PROPERTY AND I T SHOULD NOT BE FOR UNPAID INTEREST. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD PASS NECESS ARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS ITA NOS. 2282 TO 2286/BANG/2016 PAGE 11 OF 11 PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 5 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. / MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.