9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Shri Mohit Dhiman For the Respondent : Shri Manjit Singh ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A),Chandigarh dated 22.08.2012 relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the 75% of the deduction claimed u/s 24(b) without appreciating that the appellant had solely re-paid the entire interest and principal since the date of borrowing. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act as the investment was made out of the separate fund belonging to the appellant. 3. The worthy CIT(A) has failed to apply the ratio of the decision in the case of ACIT v C.K. Malik (89 ITD 249 All.) to the present case by not allowing the deduction u/s 24(b) in the proportion of investment. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that any provision for deduction / relief / incentive has to be construed liberally. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to quash the initiation of penalty proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rights, including right to residence and enjoyment, right to water, electricity, air, light, including all type of connection, including all deposited securities, including all those rights which at present are available to me, to (i) Sh. Harbans Lal Arora son of Sh. Karam Chand, (ii) Sh. Vinod Arora son of Sh. Harbans Lal Arora, (iii) Smt. Priya Arora wife of Sh. Vinod Arora and (iv) Sh. Rajiv Arora son of Sh. Harbans Lal Arora all residents of House No. 394, Phase- 2, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Distt. Ropar for a consideration price of ₹ 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs only) and the actual possession of ownership has been got made of the purchasers at the spot from today and all the original documents concerning the Plot have also been handed over to the purchasers. The total consideration price of ₹ 19,00,000/- has been received vide Draft No. 007787, dated 8.1.2003 (issued by The Hong Kong Shingai Bank Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh) before the Sub-Registrar. Now no other amount remains due to be received from the purchasers. Now I or my heirs cease to have any concern whatsoever regarding the said Plot and neither shall have any concern with the same in future. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has claimed that she had invested for purchase / construction of the impugned house property, but no evidence in this regard was produced. The Assessing Officer also observed that the housing loan has been taken jointly by all the four co-owners in whose names house property was jointly purchased. He, therefore, held that interest paid on the loan is to be divided among four co-owners as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act. The Assessing Officer allowed only 1/4th of the total interest payment and disallowed ₹ 5,15,228/- out of ₹ 6,86,971/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.8.2012 upheld the order of Assessing Officer, observing as under:-- 2.3 I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel. For the sake of ready reference, provisions of section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act are reproduced below: Whereas immovable property is transferred for consideration to two or more persons, and such consideration is paid out of a fund belonging to them in common, they are, in the absence of contract to the contrary, respectively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction. Shri Mohit Dhiman, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated this fact that the assessee had solely invested the funds for purchase / construction of the aforesaid property and had been paying EMI of the housing loan out of her income which was duly submitted before him. Shri Mohit Dhiman, Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the name of the co-owners (all being members of the assessee s family) were included in the sale deed for obtaining loan from the financial institution as his individual source of income at that time was insufficient to meet the criteria of the loan set out by the said financial institution. Shri Mohit Dhiman Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that other co-owners have never claimed any deduction under any of the provisions of I. T. Act in any of the years since the time of obtaining of the loan. Shri Mohit Dhiman also submitted that deduction of interest envisaged u/s 24(b) of the Act is a beneficial provision and should be construed liberally. 8. Shri Manjit Singh Ld. DR, On the other hand heavily relied on the order of the authorities below in support of Revenue s contention. 9. I have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
