2012 (11) TMI 430 - AT - Income Tax

Interest on housing loan - capital gains v/s House property - Held that - Deduction u/s 24(b) and computation of capital gains u/s 45 are altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from house property and capital gains . Further, a perusal of both the provisions makes it unambiguous that none of them excludes operative of the other. In other words, a deduction under section 24(b) is claimed when concerned assessee declares income from house property , whereas, the cost of the same asset is taken into consideration when it is sold and capital gains are computed under section 48. Thus no doubt that the interest in question is indeed an expenditure in acquiring the asset. Since both provisions are altogether different, the assessee in the instant case is certainly entitled to include the interest amount at the time of computing capital gains under section 48. CIT(A) has rightly accepted the assessee s contention - in favour of assessee. Loan transaction - Addition regarding income from the head other sources - CIT(A)deleted the addition - Held that - The CIT(A) has nowhere dealt with the legal aspect of the issue i.e., whether the assessee who, called himself to be a salaried employee could raise a plea his loan transaction could be called as a business activity or not even after the same had led to accrual of interest as held by the assessing authority. This vital aspect, in our opinion has escaped the consideration of the CIT(A). Thus it will be appropriate that the CIT(A) shall redecide this legal aspect - in favour of revenue by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether interest amount claimed under section 24(b) can be included in the computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the income from loan transaction can be considered a business activity for tax purposes.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the inclusion of interest amount claimed under section 24(b) in the computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer added back the interest amount to the income of the assessee from short term capital gains, contending that it had already been claimed as a deduction under section 24(b) in previous assessment years. However, the CIT(A) held that the interest amount could be included for computation under section 48 despite being claimed under section 24(b). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the provisions of deduction under section 24(b) and computation of capital gains under section 48 are distinct and not mutually exclusive. As the interest was indeed an expenditure in acquiring the asset, the assessee was deemed entitled to include the interest amount in computing capital gains. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer in this regard.

2. The second issue concerns the treatment of income from a loan transaction as a business activity for tax purposes. The Assessing Officer added an amount to the assessee's total income, contending that the activity of granting a loan to a single person could not be considered a business activity due to lack of consistency and regularity. However, the CIT(A) disagreed and deleted the addition, noting that the payments made by the creditor to the assessee were duly proven from the records. The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) considered the factual aspect of the transactions, the legal aspect of whether the loan transaction could be classified as a business activity was not adequately addressed. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to redecide this legal aspect in accordance with the law after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity for hearing. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete one addition but restored the other addition back to the CIT(A) for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly accepted the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, maintaining the decision on the first issue while directing a reevaluation of the legal aspect of the second issue.