2018 (2) TMI 259 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - disallowing interest of total interest claimed u/s 24(b) - Held that - Funds were totally explained by the assessee during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the same fact was stated before the CIT as well as while giving objection to 263 notice. The order passed by the Commissioner in capacity of Section 263 is merely a second opinion and does not fall in the category of prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee has already offered tax on the rental income. Assessing Officer has properly verified all the facts. Though on the surface the Assessing Officer s order may look short of lines but it is passed with due diligence and there is no need to invoking Section 263 power by the Commissioner. Assessing Officer has taken cognizance of all the material provided by the Assessee during the Assessment Proceedings and after verifying the same has passed just and proper order. Therefore, in light of the above findings, the order of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act is set aside. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961
2. Disallowance of interest claimed under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had issued a show cause notice to revise the assessment order under section 263, alleging that excess interest had been allowed to the assessee. The CIT contended that the interest on one of the loans was not paid by the assessee but by her husband, thus not meeting the criteria for deduction under section 24(b) of the Act. The CIT held that the interest paid on the loan borrowed by the husband was not allowable in the hands of the assessee. However, the assessee argued that the rental income was offered by her and the interest for the second loan paid by the husband was from funds provided by the assessee herself. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had properly verified the facts, and the order passed did not fall under the category of prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263, stating that the Assessing Officer had diligently assessed the income, and there was no need to invoke section 263.

2. The second issue pertains to the disallowance of interest claimed under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT disallowed a portion of the interest claimed by the assessee, stating that the interest on one of the loans was not paid by the assessee but by her husband. The CIT held that this interest was not allowable under section 24(b) of the Act. The assessee contended that the funds used to pay the interest were provided by her in the past. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had considered all material provided by the assessee and passed a just and proper order. The Tribunal concluded that the order of the Commissioner under section 263 was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Commissioner's order under section 263 and allowing the appeal.