ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Manoj Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 5030/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4128 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: R K SEHGAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH E EE E : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.4623/DEL/2010 4623/DEL/2010 4623/DEL/2010 4623/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 0808 08 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, 18 1818 18- -- -A, POCKET A, POCKET A, POCKET A, POCKET- -- -B, B,B, B, MAYUR VIHAR, MAYUR VIHAR, MAYUR VIHAR, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE- -- -II, II,II, II, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 091. 110 091. 110 091. 110 091. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO.AKCP AKCP AKCP AKCPK9183A. K9183A. K9183A. K9183A. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -36(4), 36(4), 36(4), 36(4), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.5030 5030 5030 5030/DEL/2010 /DEL/2010 /DEL/2010 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007- -- -08 0808 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -36(4), 36(4), 36(4), 36(4), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, 18 1818 18- -- -A, POCKET A, POCKET A, POCKET A, POCKET- -- -B, B,B, B, MAYUR VIHAR, MAYUR VIHAR, MAYUR VIHAR, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE- -- -II, II,II, II, DE DEDE DELHI LHI LHI LHI 110 091. 110 091. 110 091. 110 091. PAN NO.AKCPK9183A. PAN NO.AKCPK9183A. PAN NO.AKCPK9183A. PAN NO.AKCPK9183A. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K.SEHGAL, CA. REVENUE BY : SHRI B.KISHORE, SR.DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER R.P.TOLANI, J PER R.P.TOLANI, J PER R.P.TOLANI, J PER R.P.TOLANI, JM : M : M : M : THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS, ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTH ER BY THE REVENUE. 2. FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL IS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE :- 1. THE ADDITION OF RS.22,09,863/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE SAME BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) TO RS.35,98,720/- AND ACCEPTING ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 2 THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RAISED BY THE RE VENUE :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.8,35,035/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 69 OF THE I.T.ACT A S THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN ADDITION IN THE CAPITA L ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.68,761/- MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 24B AND 80C(2) OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER I N A FIRM AND DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS INC OME (AS PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT) WHICH OP ERATES A RESTAURANT IN THE NAME OF CRYSTAL AT PRAGATI MAID AN, NEW DELHI. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES HAS DEPOSITED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF `22,09,863/- WITH CENTRAL BANK OF IN DIA, PRAGATI MAIDAN. THE AO ASKED RELEVANT QUESTIONS IN THIS BE HALF TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS. ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTI ON WERE IN FACT MONEYS BELONGING TO M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. THIS WA S DONE BECAUSE MANY A TIMES, OTHER PARTNER WAS NOT AVAILAB LE FOR SIGNING ON THE CHEQUES AND FOR PURPOSES OF RUNNING THE RESTAURANT, IT WAS NECESSARY TO ISSUE CHEQUES FOR T HE PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM. THE AMOUNTS WERE THUS WITHDRAW N FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF CRYSTAL RESTAURANT WHICH IN TURN WAS A CONCERN OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. IT WAS FUR THER PLEADED ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 3 THAT THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. AO, HOWEV ER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS NOT CORRECT. THE BI LLS WERE IN THE NAME OF M/S CRYSTAL AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE PART NERSHIP FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS A DDED U/S 68. 5. APROPOS THE ADDITION OF `8,35,033/- U/S 69, AO FR OM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S PALACE RESTAURANT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF T HE FIRM BY `8,35,033/- OUT OF WHICH, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE AS SESSEES CAPITAL INCREASED BY `8,44,693/- WHICH WAS ALSO ADD ED AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN RESPECT OF T HE SUM OF `45,954/- REPRESENTING INTEREST PAYMENT ON HOUSING L OAN AND A SUM OF `22,807/- REPRESENTING ASSESSEES SHARE OF P AYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF LOAN, AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM. ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BY WAY OF EVIDENCE, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF FIRST APPEAL, AS SESSEE PRODUCED THE RELEVANT RECORD ABOUT THE CRYSTAL REST AURANT BEING A UNIT OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM NAMED AND STYLED AS M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. CONSEQUENTLY, CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMA ND REPORT FROM THE AO ALSO WHICH IS BEING REPLIED VIDE REPLY DATED 12.7.2010. ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) CONTENDED THAT (I) THE RE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/ S PALACE RESTAURANT WAS OPERATING THE RESTAURANT IN THE NAME OF CRYSTAL AND THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM IS JOINTLY OPERATE D BY BOTH THE PARTNERS, (II) MANY A TIMES, THE OTHER PARTNER WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND IN ORDER TO MAKE RELEVANT PAYMENTS PERTAINING T O THE FIRM, ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 4 ASSESSEE DEPOSITED SUCH AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND ISSUED THE CHEQUES FOR THESE EXPENSES. ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE DULY ROUTED THROUGH ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED, AND (III) THERE IS NO RULE WHICH PROHIBITS SUCH TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO MA KE CHEQUE PAYMENTS FOR THE EXPENSES OF THE FIRM AND THE OTHER PARTNER OF THE FIRM WAS NOT PRESENT. 7. CIT(A), HOWEVER, HELD THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO AGRE E WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT WHICH IS DULY P LACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 11. A SIMPLE COMPARISON WILL TALLY THIS ASPECT. AO AND CIT(A) BOTH WERE SWAYED BY THE FACT THAT THE BILLS WERE IN THE NAME OF M/S PALACE RESTAURANT AND ASSESSEE HAS GIVE A COPY OF ACCOUNT FROM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT WHICH SHOWS T HESE DEBITS. IT IS PLEADED THAT (I) AO AND CIT(A) BOTH HAVE FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT PARTNERSHIP FIRMS GENERALL Y RUN RESTAURANT IN VARIOUS FANCY NAMES. IN THIS CASE, I T IS CRYSTAL. ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 10, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIF ICATE TO THIS EFFECT FROM THE FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT THAT THE NEW NAME OF THE RESTAURANT WAS CRYSTAL WHICH IS A COMMUNICATI ON BY THE ASSESSEE TO INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION, PR AGATI MAIDAN (ITPO). THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE RESTAURANT CRYS TAL WAS THE NEW NAME OF M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 10 WHICH IS A COPY OF LICENSE ISSUE D BY THE ITPO ACCEPTING THE CHANGE OF NEW NAME AS THE CRYSTAL. ( II) IT IS ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 5 PLEADED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE FINDING THAT CRYSTAL WAS NOT PALACE RESTAURANT AND THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOTHING BUT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT OPERATING AN OUTLET IN P RAGATI MAIDAN IN THE NAME OF CRYSTAL. (III) ASSUMING EVERYTHING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IF THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ADVANCED BY CRYSTAL , THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRA WN FROM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. IN THIS EVENTUALITY ALSO, T HE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED. 9. LEARNED DR IS HEARD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, WE OBSERVE AS UNDER:- (I) THERE IS ENOUGH MATERIAL ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT WAS OPERATIN G A RESTAURANT IN PRAGATI MAIDAN IN THE NAME OF CRYSTAL WHICH IS DULY RECOGNIZED BY ITPO, THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT CRYSTAL RESTAURANT WAS NOT A PART OF M/S PALACE RESTAURANT CANNOT BE UPHELD. (II) IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT , THE ALLEGED AMOUNTS WHICH ARE CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS P ERSONAL ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN DULY WITHDRAWN. IN OUR VIEW, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS IS DULY REFLECTED. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE CASH CREDITS IN THE ASSESSE ES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT EXPLAINED. ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 6 (III) EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, T HE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IF NOT TREATED AS WIT HDRAWN FROM CRYSTAL, EVEN THEN THERE CANNOT BE A DOUBT THAT THE SAME ARE WITHDRAWN FROM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. 11. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION, LOOKING FROM ANY ANGLE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE AS SESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE UNEXPLAINED, THEREFORE, WE DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF `35,98,720/- MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES U/S 68. 12. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY TELESCOPING THIS AMOUNT WITH THE ADDITION U/S 68 AND CONSEQUENTLY DID NOT ADVERT TO THE ASSESSEES CONTE NTION ON MERITS. 14. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE REASON FOR SUCH INCREASE IN ASSESSEES CAPITAL BY `8,44,69 3/- IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE VARIOUS PAYMENTS BY CHEQUES ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM TO ITS VARIOUS CREDITORS LIKE PAYMENT OF RESTAURANT LICENSE FEES TO ITPO, A GOVERNMENT OF IN DIA ENTERPRISE, HINDUSTAN COCA COLA, BISLERI INTERNATIONAL, HALDIRA M ETC. ALL BILLS (IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM) IN SUPPORT OF SUCH PAYMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM WERE ALSO PRODUC ED BEFORE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE CONFIRMED COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ALL SUCH PAYMEN TS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS ADDITION TO HIS CAPITAL IN THE FIRM. HOWEVER, AO WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 7 THAT THE CRYSTAL AND M/S PALACE RESTAURANT ARE TWO DISTINCT FIRMS WHEREAS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN M/S PA LACE RESTAURANT AND THE CRYSTAL. CONFIRMATION LETTER DA TED 30.10.2001 IN THIS REGARD FROM ITPO, PRAGATI MAIDAN HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED AND IS BEING AGAIN FILED. THE CRYSTAL I S THE BRAND NAME OF M/S PALACE RESTAURANT. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS T HAT IN THIS SCENARIO, WHAT EMERGES IS THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM WERE MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM M/S PALACE RES TAURANT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN M ADE FROM THE ASSESSEES SAVINGS ACCOUNT ONLY. WHEN THE EXPE NSES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM ARE MORE THAN TH E AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN IN CASH AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE RESULTANT EXCESS PAYMENT WILL ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOU NT AS THE FIRM WAS ACCOUNTING FOR BOTH THE ITEMS I.E. WITHDRAWALS AND CREDIT OF EXPENSES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM . THE SAME IS AGAIN EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNT F ROM M/S PALACE RESTAURANT ANNEXED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 11 AN D 12 AND CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGES 13 AND 14. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHEL D ALBEIT ON MERITS. 16. APROPOS THE LAST AND THIRD GROUND, LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE FURN ISHED THE RELEVANT EXPLANATORY CLARIFICATION WHICH IS DULY RE FLECTED BY THE CIT(A) ALONGWITH HIS FINDING TO DELETE THE ADDITION :- ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 8 THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF A APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL STATEMENT ISSUED BY ICICI BANK PERTAINING TO THE CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) AND 80C(2) OF THE A CT. THE CERTIFICATE STATES AS UNDER: TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN, THIS IS TO STATE THAT RAMESH GUPTA & MUNNI GUPTA & MANOJ KUMAR WITH LOAN ACCOUNT NO.LBDEL00001030649/APPLICATION FORM NO.7774763949 HAS/HAVE BEEN GRANTED HOUSING LOAN FOR PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.11,00,000.00 @ 9.75% P.A. IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY: F.NO.A-18 SFS FLAT CAT-1 & 2 PKT-B, MAYUR VIHAR-II DELHI 110092 THE ABOVE LOAN IS REPAYABLE IN EQUATED MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS (EMIS) COMPRISING OF PRINCIPAL AND INT EREST IS AS FOLLOWS: PAYABLE FROM 01-APR TO 31-MAR 07 EMI AMOUNT/PREPAYMENT 1377520.00 PRINCIPAL COMPONENT 45613.00 INTEREST COMPONENT 91907.00 AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE, IT IS CL EARLY EVIDENCED THAT THE APPELLANT IS CO-OBLIGANT OF A LO AN AVAILED FROM ICICI BANK. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTFULLY CLAIMED A 50% DEDUCTION OUT OF THE ABOVE SUMS STATED TO BE PAID TO THE BANK. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICA TE OF DEDUCTION ISSUED BY THE BANK, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. 17. LEARNED DR IS HEARD. ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 9 18. APROPOS FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, W E FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. THE WHOLE CONFUSION AROSE BECAUSE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT M/S PALACE RESTAURANT WAS CARRYING ON RESTAURANT CRYSTAL WHICH IS DULY ESTABLISHED BY ITPO LICENSE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE AS SESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT CANNOT BE CALLED UNEXPLAINED CAPITA L INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE ASSESSEES PERSONAL ACCOUNT BY WAY OF EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF FIRM. THE ACCRETION OF CAPITAL BEING ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DIFFERENCE, WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THESE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ON MERITS. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. APROPOS THE REMAINING GROUND ABOUT SMALL DEDUCT ION U/S 24(B) AND 80C(2), WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH IS PASSED ON THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY ICICI BANK TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE WAS 50% CLAIMANT OF THE DEDUCTION OF THE HOUSING LOAN AND INSTALLMENT U/S 24(B) AND 80C(2). WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA (SHAMIM YAHYA (SHAMIM YAHYA (SHAMIM YAHYA) )) ) (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29.04.2011. VK. ITA-4623 & 5030/D/2010 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR