2022 (7) TMI 1277 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Entitlement to claim interest as deduction u/s. 24(b) - HELD THAT - Assessee availed loan from Reliance Home Finance Limited for Rs.8,68,50,000/- and paid interest thereon @ 12.50%. Admittedly, the said borrowed loan was paid to statutory tenants in pursuance of relinquishing deed dated 05-04-2011. The PCIT held the interest paid on such borrowed amount does not fit into provisions of clause (b) of section 24. Assessee purchased the said property in the year 2001 and the relinquishment agreement at Page 56 shows that the assessee as landlord , therefore, as rightly pointed by the PCIT, the claim of the assessee is not entitled to claim interest as deduction u/s. 24(b). On perusal of the assessment order dated 31-12-2015 clearly shows there was no discussionor reference to deduction claimed and how deduction is allowed - AO had wrong assumption of facts and by applying incorrect law without due application of mind allowed claim of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b) - Therefore, in our opinion, the PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction in holding the assessment order dated 31-12-2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of PCIT and it is justified and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of PCIT in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune, for the assessment year 2013-14 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The main issue raised was whether the PCIT was correct in deeming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The PCIT found that the deduction claimed by the assessee for interest on borrowed capital did not meet the conditions specified in section 24(b) of the Act. The PCIT held that the AO had not acted in accordance with the law in allowing the deduction, leading to the assessment order being considered erroneous. The assessee contended that the payment of compensation to the tenant should be allowable under section 24(b) and that the AO had conducted inquiries during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal had to determine the correctness of these claims.

The legal representatives of the parties presented their arguments before the Tribunal. The assessee's representative argued that the assessee had purchased a property and paid compensation to the statutory tenants, justifying the deduction claimed on the interest paid on borrowed funds. Referring to relevant circulars and legal precedents, the representative contended that the PCIT's jurisdiction under section 263 was incorrectly exercised, and the assessment order should not be considered erroneous. On the other hand, the Revenue representative argued that the AO had not properly examined the facts related to the deduction claimed for interest paid on borrowed funds. It was highlighted that the provisions of section 27(iiib) were not applicable in this case, and the PCIT's decision was supported.

After hearing the arguments and examining the facts, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had purchased the property in question and paid compensation to the statutory tenants. However, the Tribunal found that the deduction claimed by the assessee did not meet the conditions specified in section 24(b) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not adequately discussed or justified the allowance of the deduction in the assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the PCIT's decision that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the PCIT's order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the facts and legal provisions led to the affirmation of the PCIT's decision regarding the erroneous nature of the assessment order. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and proper assessment procedures to ensure the correct determination of tax liabilities.