ACIT Vs Shri Ramakant Rajaram Bodke (ITAT Pune)
It is an admitted fact that the assessee in the original return of income or in the revised return of income had never claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. Further, it is the case of the assessee that benefit of deduction u/s.54F is with respect to capital gains arising in the hands of wife of assessee which was suo-moto clubbed in the hands of assessee u/s. 64 of the Act. One of the conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 54F is that claim should have been made in the return of income. Since no such claim was made by assessee in the return of income u/s.139(1) or 139(5) of the Act, therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained.
Further, we find that the claim made by assessee u/s. 54F was in respect of capital gain arising in the hands of wife of the assessee, Smt. Sangita Ramakant Bodke, therefore, the same should have been claimed in the return of income filed by the wife of assessee. The claim of assessee u/s. 54F is liable to be rejected on this ground, as well. We observe that in the written submissions, the assessee has admitted that the claim was made mistakenly.
Deduction under section 24(b) on Income from house property for Interest on housing loan when No house property income shown
As regards assessee not having shown any house property income, it must be appreciated that in case of self occupied property there would not be any income to be shown under ‘House Property’, except claim of interest upto stipulated limit. Hence, there was no merit in the findings of AO and he was directed to allow assessee’s claim on account of interest on housing loan. Assessee claimed deduction of interest on housing loan. AO disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee had not shown any income under the head ‘Income from house property.
