9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly following the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in DEVDAS NAIK [ 2014 (7) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , we hold that both flats should be construed as one residential house and annual value of the same should be determined at nil being self-occupied house property. Accordingly, the addition made by the ld. AO is hereby directed to be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No.1914/Mum/2020 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2021 - Shri C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sandesh Desai For the Revenue : Shri Ashok Koli ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD (JM): This appeal in ITA No.1914/Mum/2020 for A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that i. Both the flats consist of one residential house ii. There is no wall dividing the flats. iii. The entire house is being used by the Appellant and his family iv. There is only one kitchen for the entire house. v. The use of the house as one unit is more important the legal existence of two flats. vi. The combined flats were booked together during construction with the builder. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bombay High Court in CIT- 21 Vs Devdas Naik in ITA No 2483 of 2011 and ITAT Special Bench in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 1503 in building known as Regency Gardens at Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. The combined flats were purchased together by the assessee and possession was also taken together from the builder. The intention of the assessee right from the beginning was always to buy one house. The said house consists of one entrance, one drawing room, one kitchen and other bed rooms. The assessee has disclosed the entire house as self-occupied and claimed the annual value at Rs Nil as per the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act. Interest on0 housing loan to the extent of ₹ 1,50,000/- was claimed as deduction u/s.24 of the Act and the same was sought to be set off against income from salaries by the assessee. 3.2. The single dispute involved in this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not tenable. 3. It is urged that the factual position has been completely misread and misconstrued so as to allow the claim. Mr.Ahuja, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal submits that the law laid down by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)-4, Mumbai v/s Ms Sushila M. Jhaveri, reported in (2007) 107 ITD 327 (MUM)(SB) and confirmed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Raman Kumar Suri in Income Tax Appeal No.6962 of 2010, decided on 27th November 2012, is applicable only when the house purchased is a single unit. According to Mr Ahuja, in the present case, two flats, one acquired in the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units or flats can be combined into one. However, admitted fact is that the flats were converted into one unit and for the purpose of residence of the Assessee. It is in these circumstances, the Commissioner held that the acquisition of the flats may have been done independently but eventually they are a single unit and house for the purpose of residence. This factual finding could have been made the basis for recording a conclusion in favour of the Assessee. We do not find that such a conclusion can be termed as perverse. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on the order passed by it in the case of Ms Sushila M. Jhaveri and which reasoning found favour with this Court is not erroneous or misplaced. The language of the section has been noted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
