DIPTI BHARGAVA, Kota V. ITO, Kota

ITA 955/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1879 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: MUZZAFAR IQBAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 955/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DIPTI BHARGAVA, 1-K-58, M. NAGAR, EXT., KOTA. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADIPB 9426 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUZZAFAR IQBAL (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/11/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA, FO R THE A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A TEACHER AND POSTED IN GOVT. HR. SEC. SCHOOL, TIRTH, DISTRICT- BUNDI. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 29/07/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,93,430/-. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ITA 955/JP/2016_ DIPTI BHARGAVA VS ITO 2 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,94,310/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY T AKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE INTERE ST DEDUCTIBLE U/S 24(B) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,55,166/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 3,22,036/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 69A OF RS. 1,00,000/- DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E APPELLANT. 4. IN THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE INV OLVED IS RESTRICTING THE INTEREST DEDUCTIBLE U/S 24(B) TO TH E EXTENT OF RS. 1,55,166/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 3,22,036/-. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEALT THIS ISSUE IN HIS ORDER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS NOTICED THAT AS PER THE DETAIL S FILED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS FOUND THAT OUT OF THE TOT AL CLAIM OF LOAN RELATED INTEREST PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF PROPERT Y AT 124, RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR, THE SECOND LOAN WAS A TERM LOAN AND ACCORDINGLY ITS INTEREST WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE AS IT HAD COMMERCIAL ASPECT INVOLVED AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS FOR MAINTENANCE OR UPKEEP OF THE PROPERT Y AT 124, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR. THE PORTION OF THE INTEREST EXCLUDED BY THE A.O. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) IS CONFIRMED. THE CLAIM IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,55,166/- ONLY. ITA 955/JP/2016_ DIPTI BHARGAVA VS ITO 3 5. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE LOAN WA S TAKEN FOR FURNISHING, EQUIPMENTS, FIXTURE, COLORS, FANS, A.CS , DIESEL GENERATORS. THESE ITEMS WERE PART AND PARCEL OF ROOMS LET OUT TO EARN THE RENTAL INCOME. ALL THESE EQUIPMENTS WERE USED TO EARN THE R ENTAL INCOME. THESE EQUIPMENTS WERE PART OF WHOLE FROM WHICH ASSESSEE DERIVED RENTAL INCOME. THESE FURNITURE FIXTURES AND OTHER EQ UIPMENTS ARE NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR LETTING OUT THE ROOM. REV ENUES CLAIM THAT THIS LOAN WAS HAVING COMMERCIAL ASPECT AND INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWABLE, BUT NOTHING IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECO RD. SIMPLY MENTIONING COMMERCIAL ASPECT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO D ISALLOW THE INTEREST. 7. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE SECOND GROUND OF THE AP PEAL IS CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 69A OF RS. 1,00,000/- D EPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D THIS ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3, IN VIEW OF THE FINDING GIV EN BY THE A.O. AND THE NON SPECIFIC REPLIES OF THE A.O. IN TH E APPELLATE ITA 955/JP/2016_ DIPTI BHARGAVA VS ITO 4 PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE CONTRADICTORY TO THE CLAIM MAD E DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH THE A.O. CONTROVERTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, I AM O F THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/- HAS BEE N RIGHTLY MADE AND IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 8. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IS OUT OF INC OME OF HOSTEL OF RS. 19,34,232/-. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HA S STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE CAUTION MONEY RECEIV ED FROM THE STUDENTS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ADMISSIONS IN THE HOSTEL WAS MADE IN THE MO NTH OF JUNE-JULY, 2009. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING TWO HOSTELS ONE AT 124, RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR , KOTA AND OTHER IN THE SHARE WITH SMT. UMAKANT BHARGAVA AND MRS. ART I BHARGAVA AT 162, RAJEEV GANDHI NAGAR, KOTA. CONSIDERING THIS AS PECT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SOME MORE FACTS ARE REQUIRED ON RECORD TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ITA 955/JP/2016_ DIPTI BHARGAVA VS ITO 5 RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/11/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. DIPTI BHARGAVA, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 955/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR