M/s. National Trust Housing Finance Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 493/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 49321714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 493/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S NATIONAL TRUST HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 73, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN : AAACM4897L (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(4), CHENNAI 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJKUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.N. MURTHY NA IK, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 29.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.09.2011 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVAN CE IS THAT A.O. AS WELL AS CIT(APPEALS) DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEP RECIATION ` 6,16,754/- AND CONSIDERED INTEREST INCOME FROM ICD FIXED DEPOSITS AS I.T.A. NO. 493/MDS/11 2 NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 3 6(1)(VIII) OF INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED LATE B Y 135 DAYS. AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE SATISFACTORY AND THE LEARNED D.R. DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONE D AND APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. VIS--VIS DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, FOR THE SA ME PROPERTY ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. THE A.O. DISAL LOWED THE DEPRECIATION AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAM E. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RESPECTIVE COUNSELS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPERTY ON WHICH INCOME WAS ADMITTED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM DEPR ECIATION DEEMING IT TO BE A BUSINESS ASSET. IF IT IS A BUSINESS ASS ET, INCOME THEREFROM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO I.T.A. NO. 493/MDS/11 3 INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON DEPRECIATION. 5. VIS--VIS THE SECOND ISSUE REGARDING CLAIM OF DE DUCTION ON INTEREST INCOME, LEARNED A.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IT WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN AN EARLIER YEAR, VIZ. ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002- 03 BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A . NO. 787/MDS/2007 DATED 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2008, A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. 6. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A . NO. 787/MDS/2007 (SUPRA) THAT SUCH CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIII) OF THE ACT ON INTEREST INCOME FROM ICD FIXED DEPOSITS WAS DENIED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THIS REGARD IS DISM ISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 785/MDS/2007 DATED 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2008, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED. I.T.A. NO. 493/MDS/11 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE