9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruction of building has to be allowed - HELD THAT:- Unless and until the building is ready to let out, the interest incurred by the assessee on loan borrowed for construction of building has to be capitalised. Since in the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the commercial building was ready in all respects by getting the power connection, water connection, occupation certificate, clearance from fire fighting department, etc., it cannot be presumed that building was ready to let out and assessee taken any steps to let out. The whole plea of the assessee to let out the property is only on presumption basis without any specific evidence on record to suggest that assessee has taken steps to let out the property. In such circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pletion of construction of the building and its readiness to let out, then the claim of the assessee could have been entertained in the rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act by the revenue authorities. In the absence of any such evidence furnished, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in rejecting the claim of assessee. The issue raised by the assessee is a debatable issue which cannot be rectified in the proceedings u/s. 154 - Assessee appeal dismissed. - ITA No. 306/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2022 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore ORDER Per Chand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore has erred in summarily rejecting the submissions made by the assessee. 6.1 In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) 5, Bangalore be quashed And Losses of ₹ 1,37,90,289/- be allowed to be carried forward as claimed in the revised return of income. The appellant prays accordingly. 2. The facts of the case are that assessee filed a loss return of ₹ 1,76,77,280 on 30.9.2011. However, the said return was revised to rectify certain mistakes on 7.3.2013 declaring a loss of ₹ 1,37,90,289. In the said revised return, the assessee had clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, there is no necessity of having rental income so as to claim deduction u/s. 24 towards interest payment on construction of commercial building. According to her, the construction of property has been completed and interest has been paid. The annual letting value of the property was NIL on account of non-letting out of the said property. However, the interest incurred by the assessee has to be allowed to set off against income from any other source in the same assessment year and if there is no income under any other head of income, same has to be carried forward. She further submitted that in case annual letting value of the property u/s. 23(1)(c) is to be considered as NIL as the property was not let out even after best efforts of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the commercial building was ready to let out and assessee had taken any steps to let it out. Unless and until the building is ready to let out, the interest incurred by the assessee on loan borrowed for construction of building has to be capitalised. Since in the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the commercial building was ready in all respects by getting the power connection, water connection, occupation certificate, clearance from fire fighting department, etc., it cannot be presumed that building was ready to let out and assessee taken any steps to let out. The whole plea of the assessee to let out the property is only on presumption basis without any specific evidence on record to suggest that assessee has taken st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished along with the return of income with regard to completion of construction of the building and its readiness to let out, then the claim of the assessee could have been entertained in the rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act by the revenue authorities. In the absence of any such evidence furnished, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in rejecting the claim of assessee. The issue raised by the assessee is a debatable issue which cannot be rectified in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of lower authorities and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
