Shri. Ravindra R V, Bengaluru V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 393/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ravindra R.V. against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which denied him the exemption on House Rent Allowance (HRA) under section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2020-21. The AO had denied the HRA exemption during the processing of the return under section 143(1)(a) due to insufficient details in the return regarding the breakup of Basic salary, DA, HRA, etc. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal found that the necessary details were not available in the return but were provided during the appeal, and thus remitted the issue back to the AO for proper quantification of the HRA exemption.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129386 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEERESH KUMAR HEGDE

Judgement Text

ITA No.393/Bang/2023 Ravindra R.V., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.393/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ravindra R.V. No.204, Vars Casarosa 1 st Main, PAI Layout Bengaluru 560 016 PAN NO : AAMPV1553B Vs. DCIT Circle-5(3)(2) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sheeresh Kumar Hegde, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Nischal, D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 27.2.2023 for the assessment year. 2. There was a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay that due to his personal difficulties, he took time to contact the Chartered Accountant to file appeal before this Tribunal. 2.1 In our opinion, there is a bonafide reason for filing the appeal belatedly by 19 days before this Tribunal. Considering the reason explained by the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only grievance in this appeal is with regard to non-granting of exemption of House Rent Allowance (HRA) received by the assessee. ITA No.393/Bang/2023 Ravindra R.V., Bangalore Page 2 of 4 3.1 The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] towards the house rent allowance which is part of his salary component amounting to Rs.1,02,564/-. While processing the return of income, the exemption claimed has been denied on the basis that amount claimed to have been the least of an amount equal to 50% of the Basic + DA or excess rent paid either 10% of salary or actual HRA received. However, the ld. AO denied the benefit u/s 10(13A) of the Act on the reason that the return of income did not have specific details of breakup of Basic salary, DA, HRA, etc. and also return of income did not have specific window or caption, which could capture the data of HRA exemption. In the absence of suitable details while processing return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, the benefit of HRA not given. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before us, ld. A.R. submitted the assessee’s salary details for the assessment year under consideration, which is as follows: ITA No.393/Bang/2023 Ravindra R.V., Bangalore Page 3 of 4 4.1 According to him, the assessee is entitled for HRA exemption to the tune of Rs.1,02,564/- out of HRA received to the tune of Rs.1,79,440/- and computed the deduction u/s 10(13A) of the Act read with Rule 2A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as follows: 4.2 In our opinion, these details are not available in the return of income filed by the assessee along with Form No.16. As such, ld. NFAC/CIT(A) adopted the entire salary instead of considering the Basic & DA while computing the benefit u/s 10(13A) of the Act read with Rule 2A of the I.T. Rules. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit this issue to the file of ld. AO to re-examine the issue for the purpose of quantification of HRA on the basis of Form No.16 filed by the assessee before lower authorities. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. AO for reconsideration so as to grant deduction towards HRA. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th Sept, 2023 Sd/- (Madhumita Roy) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 7 th Sept, 2023. VG/SPS ITA No.393/Bang/2023 Ravindra R.V., Bangalore Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.