Ravi Bindal & Madan Lal Chaudhary, Parwanoo V. ITO, Parwanoo

ITA 836/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1467 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, SMC, CHANDIGARH , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 836/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 RAVI BINDAL & MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY, HIG-3, SECTOR 1A, PARWANOO DISTT. SOLAN (H.P.) VS. THE ITO, PARWANOO ./PAN NO: AAKFR1027J / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SH SURINDER BABBAR, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR ' #$ /DATE OF HEARING : 06.06.2019 %&'($ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06. 06.2019 / ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONCURRENCE WITH THAT OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG, AGAINST FACTS AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LAW . ITA NO. 836-CHD-2018- RAVI BINDAL & MADAN LAL CHAUDHAR, SOLAN 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,68,216/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWIN G INTEREST CLAIMED UNDER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATI NG TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM HOU SE PROPERTY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR EARNED A TOTAL RENTAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 14.49 LACS. THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS. 8,68,216/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE I NCURRED FOR ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY AS A LLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REVEALS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECT ED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON TWO GROUNDS; FIRSTLY, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT LOAN AGREEMENT / BANK PA PERS TO SHOW THAT THE AFORESAID LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR ACQUISITION / CONSTRU CTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN QUESTION; SECONDLY, THAT EVEN OTHERWIS E THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING INCLUDING LIFT AS PER THE BALANCE S HEET WAS OF RS. 1,40,75,414/-, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON A TOTAL LOAN OF RS. 1.61 CRORES. ITA NO. 836-CHD-2018- RAVI BINDAL & MADAN LAL CHAUDHAR, SOLAN 3 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT HE IS READY TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE AFORESAID LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR ACQUISITION / CONS TRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) T HAT AS AGAINST THE TOTAL LOAN OF RS. 1.61 CORES, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1.40 CRORES ON THE BUILDING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN IN TWO P ARTS. IN FIRST PART, A LOAN OF RS. 70 LACS WAS TAKEN WHICH WAS FULLY UTILI ZED, HOWEVER, OUT OF THE SECOND LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 CRORE, THE ASSESSE E UTILIZED MOST OF THE AMOUNT EXCEPT SOME AMOUNT WHICH WAS DEPOSITED I N THE SHAPE OF FDR WITH THE BANK TO BE USED AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED TO DEMONSTRATE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO EXAC TLY WHAT AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS USED FOR ACQUISITION / CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND THAT HOW MUCH OF PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE IS ATTRACTED, CO NSIDERING THE DATE OF THE LOAN SANCTIONED AND DATE OF UTILIZATION OF THE SAME ETC. 5. I FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE SAME, I ACCORDINGLY S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE LIMITED ASPECTS AS NOTED ABOVE AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH ON THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO. 836-CHD-2018- RAVI BINDAL & MADAN LAL CHAUDHAR, SOLAN 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMM EDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING. SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06.06.2019 .. &* +,-, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' . / CIT 4. ' . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/0 1 , $1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 046# / GUARD FILE &* ' / BY ORDER, 7! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR