Case Law Details

Case Name : Priya Mahajan Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 384 of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/11/2015
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09

Brief of the Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court held In the case of Priya Mahajan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh and another that the lower authorities have concurrently recorded that since the individual shares were not specified in the sale deed and the house property as well as the housing loan is to be taken as jointly by all the co-owners, the logical conclusion is that everyone had equal share in the property and the assessee was entitled to 1/4th deduction, i.e. 25% of the entire interest. Also the assessee has claimed that she alone has invested for purchase/construction of the house property, but no evidence in support of this stand is available on records. Further the Learned counsel for the assessee was not able to demonstrate that the approach of the authorities below was erroneous or perverse or that the findings of fact recorded were based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence on record. The view of the Assessing Officer, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal is a plausible view based on material on record which warrants no interference by this Court.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed her return of income on 31.7.2008 for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring the income at Rs. 7,44,834/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 18.1.2009 declaring the income at Rs.3,08,663/-. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on housing loan of Rs. 6,86,971/- under Section 24(b).

The Assessing Officer had noticed that there were four co -sharers in the house in question and the loan was taken jointly by them in their names. Since the share of the individual was not specified in the sale deed, the logical conclusion was that everyone had equal share in the property. The Assessing Officer had observed that the interest paid on the loan was to be divided among four co-owners as per the provisions of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, thus, allowed only 1/4th of the total interest payment to the assessee.

Held by CIT (A)

CIT (A) rejected the appeal of the assessee. It was held that the house loan has been taken jointly by all the four co-owners in whose names the house property was purchased and, therefore, the interest paid on the loan was to be divided among the four co-owners as per the provisions of Section 45 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. So the Assessing Officer was right in restricting the interest under Section 24(b) to 25%.

Held by ITAT

The ITAT upheld the order of CIT (A). It was held that plot in question was purchased by four persons and the housing loan had also been taken jointly by the said four persons, therefore, the allowable interest to the assessee was 25% of the entire interest.  Further, it was held that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A) was justified in holding that since the individual shares were not specified in the sale deed, the logical conclusion was that everyone had equal share in the property.  It was also recorded that even the assessee had failed to produce any evidence on record regarding her claim that she alone had invested for purchase/ construction of the house property.

Held by High Court

 High Court held that the authorities below on appreciation of material on record have concurrently recorded that the assessee was entitled to 1/4th deduction, i.e. 25% of the entire interest. Learned counsel for the assessee was not able to demonstrate that the approach of the authorities below was erroneous or perverse or that the findings of fact recorded were based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence on record.  The view of the Assessing Officer, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal is a plausible view based on material on record which warrants no interference by this Court.

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (20871)
Type : Judiciary (8912)

Search Posts by Date