Case Law Details
ITO Vs Sanjay Gurudasmal Chawla (ITAT Mumbai)
We observe that the claim made by the assessee in the form of a letter and by way of revised computation of income in the course of the assessment proceedings was never entertained by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not gone into the claim at all. Since the Assessing Officer has not gone into the claim of the assessee no finding was given on the claims made by the assessee. Therefore, the observations of the Ld.CIT(A) that since there is no adverse finding by the Assessing Officer, there is no justification in accepting the claim of the assessee is wrong. Since the Assessing Officer has not gone into the claim of the assessee, we are of the view that this matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of details of property acquired, rental income shown, loan borrowed for acquisition of property, interest paid on such loan etc., so as to satisfy that the condition u/s. 24(b) of the Act are complied for allowing such deduction. Thus, we restore the issue of deduction u/s. 24(b) of the Act to the file Assessing Officer for denovo consideration. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 33, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 13.02.2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: –
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
