PUJA A NAHAR, MUMBAI V. CIT(A) 40, MUMBAI

ITA 5429/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3316 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M DAYASAGAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5429/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 PUJA A. NAHAR, 102, MANI MANSION, 63 DR. G.D. MARG, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400026 / VS. DCIT (OSD) - 1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, ROOM NO.409, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD. MUMBAI-400020 PAN NO. ADVPN1252H ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIMAL PUNAMIYA / REVENUE BY SHRI M.DAYASAGAR CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 30/05/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 09/06/2016 ITA NO.5429/MUM/2014 PUJA A NAHAR 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/06/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION FOR CLAIM OF INTERE ST OF RS.1,50,000/- U/S 24(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. DURING HEARING, AT THE OUTSET, SHRI VIMAL PUNAMIYA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CONTENDED T HAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22/07/2015 (ITA NO.5 427 & 5428/MUM/2014), IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF. THI S FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY SHRI M. DAYA SAGAR, LD. CIT-DR. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 22/07/2015 FOR READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- ITA NO.5429/MUM/2014 PUJA A NAHAR 3 THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-201 0, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE ASSESSME NT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH PERTAIN TO DISALLO WANCE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S.24(B) OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PE RUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL PURCHASED ONE FLAT BEARING NO.1204 IN ZARA VIDE AGREEMENT DAT ED 3-9- 2007 FOR AMOUNT OF RS.32,67,375/-. FOR ACQUIRING TH E FLAT ASSESSEE OBTAINED LOAN FROM NAHAR BUILDER AMOUNTING TO RS.33,96,950/- ON 28-6-2007 AND OUT OF THAT SAME RS.32,17,375/- PAID TO NAHAR ENTERPRISES ON 6-7-200 7. ON THE ABOVE LOAN ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST @15% AND CLAI MED THE DEDUCTION U/S.24(B) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- AS T HE PROPERTY IS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY BEING THE ONLY F LAT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INTEREST ON THE PLEA THAT NEXUS OF BORROWED FUNDS W AS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THAT FUND WAS RAISED FROM THE SAME GROUP CONCERN. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSE E IS IN FURTHER APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY BORROWED FUNDS FOR PURCHASE O F HOUSE. THE INTEREST PAID ON SUCH BORROWED FUND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.24(B), HOWEVER, THERE IS NO BAR THAT FUNDS CANNOT BE BORROWED FROM GROUP CONCERN, NO SANCTION LETTER IS REQUIRED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF INT EREST WHEN ITA NO.5429/MUM/2014 PUJA A NAHAR 4 THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONFIRMATION SO FILED BY THE LENDER. SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT TALKS ABOUT BORRO WED CAPITAL AND DOES NOT TALK ABOUT BORROWED LOAN. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(B) IF THE ASSESSEE BORROWE D SOME FUNDS IN ANY FORM AND PAID INTEREST THEREON, THEN H E WILL BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.24(B) OF THE I. T.ACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO BAR ON SOURCE OF LOAN, WHICH C AN BE TAKEN FROM RELATIVE CONCERN, FRIENDS, ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, BANK ETC.. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MITHILESH KUMARI 92 ITR 9, HELD THAT WHERE THE LOAN WAS OBTAI NED FROM MOTHER-IN-LAW AND INTEREST WAS PAID, THE SAME WAS A LLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW ASSESSEES CL AIM FOR INTEREST OF RS.1,50,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-2010 UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S.24(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 ARE ALLO WED. WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10, ORDER DATED 22/07/2015 HAS DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSUE WHICH PER TAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S 24(B) OF T HE ACT AND ON CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF INTEREST. NO CO NTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER SIDE, MORE SPECIFICALLY THE REVENUE AND SINCE THE FACTS/ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO, THEREFORE, FO LLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ITA NO.5429/MUM/2014 PUJA A NAHAR 5 FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 30/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 09/06/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01 )2 , + %& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, */& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI