9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oan for acquiring, constructing, repairing, renewing or reconstructing with borrowed capital, it is such a person who has himself made the initial down payment and paid EMIs from his own resources for purchase of the property belonging to him (or acquired through that loan) and has received the rent income if any from the property who alone is entitled to tax relief. Accordingly on a consideration of the material available on record and the views of the tax authorities as expressed in the orders and the argument of the assessee before the CIT(A), I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The assessee on facts has placed fresh evidences before the CIT(A) which as per record have been remanded to the AO who has failed to file any Remand Report. In the circumstances, while remanding the issue to the CIT(A) it is directed that another reasonable attempt may be made to obtain a Remand Report from the AO and in case the AO still fails to respond, the CIT(A), may consider and verify the evidences at his level and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the fact that assessee is the sole owner of Banglore property and he has declared 100% of income from Banglore property. 7. That the CIT(A) disregard the fact that Mrs. Jaya Verma received the rent towards furniture and appliances and she is not the owner of Banglore property. That the CIT(A) wrongly assumed that she is owner of 27% of Banglore property. 8. That the assessee is sole owner of Banglore property and he took the loan in his name only. The assessee is entitled for deduction on account of total interest paid for housing loan. 9. The assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. Both the parties had moved applications for adjournment. As no one was present to represent on behalf of the parties a pass over was given. Even after giving a pass over and on noting that still no one was present for the Revenue which had remained unrepresented through out the week accordingly, considering the material available on record qua the issues agitated it was considered appropriate to reject the applications for adjournment moved by both the parties and proceed ex-parte qua both the Assesseeappellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Verma. It is also seen that for the purchase of this property the appellant and his wife had jointly taken loan and were jointly liable to repay the installment including interest. In these circumstances the appellant's liability to pay the interest was limited to only 50% of the total interest accruing on the loan amount. Accordingly, the appellant was eligible for deduction of 50% of the total interest on the loan. Merely, because the appellant has paid the whole of interest and thereby discharged the liability of his wife does not entitle the appellant to claim the deduction with respect to the interest liability of his wife. It may be relevant to mention here that the appellant's wife is an independent assessee and filed her return of income. She is entitled to claim the deduction for interest paid on her share of loan. It is not open to the appellant to claim the total deduction on account of interest liability on the housing loan in his return of income. The addition made by the AO is accordingly confirmed. (ii) A-1210. Springfields, Banglore:- In this regard, as seen from the assessment order the property is jointly owned by the appellant and his wife. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f EMI has not been paid by the wife. The submissions addressing the reasons for co-ownership and the use of joint names, it has been adequately explained, is to address the socioeconomic and cultural practices to provide psychological, social and financial security to a surviving spouse in the unfortunate circumstances where the main bread winner of the family does not survive. The fact that it also keeps the inheritance issues simplified in the eventuality of the untimely demise of the husband may also be a relevant factor as it would ensure easy transfer of the properties to the surviving spouse. The financial planning by couples where primarily the husband may be the primary economic supporter of the family is invariably guided by his need to ensure that his surviving spouse, in case of his untimely demise, is not put to the time consuming and exhausting compliance requirements of Land Revenue and Bank Authorities before transferring the ownership in the immovable and movable property to his spouse is permitted. The need to avoid these routine legal procedures may also be relevant factors and reasons personal to the assessee as such inclusions address the immediate psychological ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contrary by the tax authorities, I find that the CIT(A) has wrongly assumed that the assessee s spouse was the owner of 27% of the Banglore property and instead of allowing 100% of interest wrongly disallowed interest of 27% while allowing the assessee interest to the extent of 73% only. As far as the rent for the premises are concerned, it is claimed that 100% of the same is deposited in the assessee s account. It may not be out of place to state that though the spouses at times hold joint accounts to address the human frailties the account invariably is operated by the primary holder of the account and this is a material fact which cannot be ignored. The fact that the name of the spouse is included as a joint account holder, as observed earlier to be operated by either or survivor account, is only to address the transient nature of human life and at best addresses the need for security of a surviving spouse and hence cannot be the determinative factor to deny the claim of the assessee as done in the present case. It is noticed that the consistent claim of the assessee is that the initial down payment and EMIs were made by the assessee from his own sources and that his wife, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
