Mr/ Rajashekhar Basappa Malagihal, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2873/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8091 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: N K MOHONOT
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2873/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. MR. RAJASHEKHAR BASAPPA MALAGIHAL, C6E, BEHIND SUTHERLAND, CEEDEE YES REGAL PALM, VELACHERY, CHENNAI 600 042. [ PAN ABRPM 4658A ] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17, CHENNAI. ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. N.K. MOHONOT, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASHISH TRIPATHI, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 11-1-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-1-2017 ' / O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19-08-2016 PASSED BY CI T (A) 5 IS QUITE ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT. ITA NO. 2873/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS STATED IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 7.2 THAT REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR VARIOUS DISALLOWA NCE AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCES MADE. IN REMAND REPORT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE FROM AO AND VALID REASONS F OR DISALLOWANCE. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHO LDING THE ORDER OF AO. 3. NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GIVEN AN Y FINDINGS OR REASONS ON THE DISALLOWANCES MADE. 4. THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IS VERY VAGUE A ND CIT (A) HAS MENTIONED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE SAME IN FIRST PLACE . 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE AN EMPLOYEE OF HDF C BANK HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR DISCLOSING AN INCOME OF @45,38,200/-. TOTAL INCOME CONSISTED OF SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, ASSES SEE HAD INTEREST ON TERM DEPOSITS AND INTEREST ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, AGAINST WHICH BANK INTEREST/CHARGES OF @13,525/- AND AUDIT FEES O F @6,000/- WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. APART FROM THIS, UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ASSESSEE RETURNED A NEGATIVE FIGURE OF @1,50,000/-, CLAIMING IT AS INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN. ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN AND CLAIM OF BANK CHARGES/INTEREST AND AUDIT FEES. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW 80G DEDUCTION WHICH WAS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2873/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SPECIFICAL LY DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE REASONS FOR DISALL OWANCE AND WHY ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 WAS NOT ALLOWED. IN THE REMAND REPORT WHAT WAS MENTIONED B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2004, IT IS OBSERVED THAT BY OVERSIGHT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80G OF @1,800/- WA S NOT GIVEN.. BASED ON THE REMAND REPORT, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S.80G OF THE ACT. HO WEVER, VIZ-A-VIZ DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN CLAIMED UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DISALLOWANCE OF BANK INTEREST AND AUDIT FEES TOTALING @19,525/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEA D OTHER SOURCES, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. HE CONFIRMED THESE DISALLOWANCES. 4. NOW BEFORE ME, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRON GLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT VIZ-A-VIZ ITA NO. 2873/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN, ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CER TIFICATE DATED 30.05.2012 FOR INTEREST OF @2,57,544/- PAID ON A H OUSING LOAN FROM M/S. HDFC BANK. IN SO FAR AS BANK CHARGES/ INTERES T OF @13,525/- AND AUDIT FEES OF @6,000/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES, SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE WAS THAT THESE WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME AND ALLOWABLE U/S.57(III) OF THE ACT. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN SO FAR AS CLAIM OF INTEREST O N HOUSING LOAN IS CONCERNED A CERTIFICATE DATED 30.05.2012 FROM M/S.H DFC IS AVAILABLE. THE CONTENTS OF THE CERTIFICATE IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER:- TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR APRI L 1, 2011 TO MARCH 31, 2012, THE EMPLOYEE RAJASHEKHAR BASAPPA MALAGIHAL, H AS REPAID THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING LONA. PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT : @28607 INTEREST PAYMENT : @257544 NOTES: 1. PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80C. 2. INTEREST REPAID ON THE LOAN IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 24. ITA NO. 2873/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: THE CLAIM IS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE. IN SO FAR BANK CHA RGES AND INTEREST OF @13,525/- AND AUDIT FEES OF @6,000/- CLAIMED AS EXP ENDITURE U/S.57(III) OF THE ACT, ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODU CE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED FOR EARNIN G THE INCOME RETURNED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THUS WHILE I DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF @1,50,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, DISALLOWANCE OF @13,525 /- AND @6,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE ARE CONFIRM ED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY, 20 17, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF