9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by an affidavit. When seen in the context, it is very difficult to believe the position taken by the assessee. Assessee, at first instance, has not declared rental income while filing the return of income duly verified under s.140 of the Act. The omission to disclose the so-called rent income derived from mother in the return of income is not explained. the income claimed to have been received and not declared in the return cannot be seen in a light hearted banner. The assessee has conveniently revised the computation to introduce the source of rental income from mother who also happens to be co-owner of the same property. The receipt has been shown to be in cash to shun any possibility of verification. Thus, no trail is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad ( CIT(A) in short), dated 18.04.2016 arising in the assessment order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital to the extent of ₹ 6,77,014/- instead of claim of ₹ 8,27,014/- under s.23(2)(b) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee, a salaried employee filed return of income for the AY 2012-13 showing gross salary of ₹ 19,61,077/- from Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he municipal limit of the City. Therefore, in terms of Section 23(2) of the Act, gross annual value of the property at Shilaj shall be taken at nil. The AO also noticed that the assessee himself has taken the annual value as nil in the return, the computation whereof was revised in the proceedings before AO to contend that the property is given on rent. The AO accordingly held that the property is a self-occupied property and accordingly, the assessee is entitled to claim interest on borrowed capital limited to the extent of specified sum i.e. ₹ 1,50,000/-. The AO further questioned the bonafides of the rent paid to his mother in the absence of any concrete documents such as bank statement etc. The AO accordingly restricted the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee also referred to the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt. Tupur Chatterji vs. ACIT [2014] 51 taxmann.com 240 (Mumbai-Trib.) for the proposition that interest on borrowed funds is fully deductible against the annual value without any statutory restriction of ₹ 1,50,000/- benchmarked for the purposes of only self-occupied property specified under s.23(2) of the Act. 7. The learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and submitted in furtherance that the conduct of the assessee is self-evident. It was contended that the assessee himself has omitted to declare any rental income from the property at the first place. When confronted about the restri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upying the house owing to his employment etc. at other place. The annual value of such house shall be taken at nil and consequently, the deduction of interest on borrowed capital in such circumstances is restricted to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000/- under s.24 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. The assessee, in the instant case, has also claimed nil annual value on this residential house in the return of income. However, by way of revised computation in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has altered his stand and claimed that he was not in actual occupation of the residential house (co-owned by him alongwith his mother). It was claimed that the residential house at Shilaj was actually occupied by his mother and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income duly verified under s.140 of the Act. The omission to disclose the so-called rent income derived from mother in the return of income is not explained. Needless to say, a person filing the return of income requires to verify the contents of the return to be true and any falsification in such verification has serious consequences under Chapter XXII of the Act. Thus, the income claimed to have been received and not declared in the return cannot be seen in a light hearted banner. The assessee has conveniently revised the computation to introduce the source of rental income from mother who also happens to be co-owner of the same property. The receipt has been shown to be in cash to shun any possibility of verification. Thus, no trail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
