9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of deduction for collection charges under 'house property' for assessment year 1989-90. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) denying the deduction of Rs. 12,500 claimed as collection charges under section 24(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee leased out a property and paid an amount to a broker for procuring the lease and advance rent. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance stating that the payment was not for the collection of rent. The Appellate Tribunal heard both parties' submissions. The assessee argued that the payment to the broker should be considered as 'collection charges' under the Income-tax Act, citing relevant court decisions. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that the broker acted as an estate broker and not for rent collection. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 24(1)(viii) and the purpose of the expenditure incurred for earning property income. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure should be aimed at collecting rent, not necessarily for the actual collection. A pragmatic view of the provision was advised to prevent hardship and ensure genuine claims are allowed. The Tribunal provided an illustration to explain the broader interpretation of 'collection charges' in the context of rent collection. It highlighted that the expenditure should have a close nexus with rent collection, regardless of the outcome of the collection process. The purpose of the expenditure should be considered in determining its admissibility. The Tribunal emphasized that a reasonable construction of the provision is necessary to prevent unjust denials of legitimate claims. The Tribunal stressed that the expenditure should aim to enable or facilitate the collection of rent from the property, subject to the prescribed limit. Applying the above principles to the case, the Tribunal found that the payment made to the broker had a direct connection with the collection of advance rent from the tenant. The broker's services were essential for finding a tenant and securing advance rent for the property. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court and a case from the Calcutta High Court to support its interpretation of 'collection charges.' Both cases allowed similar expenditures related to property income under section 24(1)(viii). The Tribunal concluded that the claim for collection charges made by the assessee was valid and directed the Income Tax Officer to allow the deduction claimed. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the broader interpretation of 'collection charges' under section 24(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the payment made to the broker for procuring the lease and advance rent was to be considered as 'collection charges' and directed the Income Tax Officer to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee.
|
