KAMLESH GOEL (HUF), MUMBAI V. ACIT CC 10, MUMBAI

ITA 3915/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 391519914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Deemed owner of house property; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'SMC' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 3915/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. KAMLESH GOEL (HUF) A C I T - 10 101 HDIL TOWER AAYAKAR BHAVAN ANNEX ANAND KANEKAR MARG VS. M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 BANDRA (E), MUMBAI PAN - AAFHK6996Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. SONIA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 30.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.02.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI AND IT P ERTAINS TO A.Y. 2009- 10. THOUGH THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TI ME NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 AND, THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS GROU NDS OF APPEAL. THE GIST OF THE GROUNDS ARE THAT: (A) THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY B Y THE AO TO FURNISH MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS AND THE LEAR NED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE, (B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE HOUSE AT EBEN EZAR WAS NOT HABITABLE AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE CONSI DERED AS DEEMED LET OUT, (C) HE ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE THREE FLA TS IN THREE DIFFERENT FLOORS OWNED BY FOUR CO-OWNERS IS ONE DWELLING UNIT , AND ITA NO. 3915/MUM/2013 2 (D) HABITABILITY OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED F ROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PERSON WHO HAS TO RESIDE IN THE FLAT AND FRO M THAT PERSPECTIVE THE FLAT AT SANTACRUZ WAS HABITABLE AND SHOULD BE T REATED AS DEEMED TO BE LET OUT AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE ASSESSEE S HOULD BE ALLOWED THE INTEREST PAID ON LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN FULL WITHOUT PUTTING A CAP ON THE SAID CLAIM BY TREATING IT AS S ELF-OCCUPIED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND CAREFULLY PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE LEARNED D.R. PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CO-OWNER, I.E. SHRI. PRAYAS GOYAL WHEREIN THIS VERY ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL AND THE SAME WA S FOLLOWED BY HIM IN ASSESSEES CASE ALSO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL REASONS AS TO WHY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT ADMITTED AND WHAT W AS THE REASONS THAT CULMINATED IN ARRIVING AT A FINDING THAT THE SANTAC RUZ PROPERTY WAS NOT HABITABLE AND HENCE THE SAME CAN NEITHER BE TREATED AS SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY NOR ANY DEEMED ALV CAN BE COMPUTED THEREFR OM. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FOREGONE THE CLAIM OF ALV. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE REASONS AS TO WHY IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS HABITABLE AND HENCE IS NOT FIT FOR LETTING OUT THEREBY THE ALV SHOULD NOT BE COMPUTED AND AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE INTEREST PAID CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION. 4. NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE ME, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, TO COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. IN FACT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE OTHER CO-OWNER, I.E. SHRI PRAYAS GOEL, HAS PREF ERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 ITA NO. 3915/MUM/2013 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 37, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CENTRAL-I, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.