TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance on non furnishing of evidence to show that the interest on loan has been utilized for the purpose of said premises - Held that:- The assessee is not consistent in her stand. At one point she says the interest has to be deducted from the rental income and at another claims the loan has been utilized for the residential accommodation. Therefor the matter is restored back to the file of the A.O. - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand. - ITA No. 5590/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2011 - R.K. Panda, Vijay Pal Rao, JJ. J.V. Chhabria for the Appellant O.A. Mao for the Respondent ORDER R.K. Panda 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 03.05.2010 of the CIT(A)-33 Mumbai relating to A.Y. 2006-07. 2. Grounds of appeal 1 and 2 read as under:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the lower authorities erred in treating flat No. 601/602 as two separate flats though it is one and consequently erred in working out the notional income from one house at Rs.2,52,000/-. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, both the lower authorities erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the flats. In view of the above, it can be concluded that assessee has two flats in Gaurav Plaza and therefore should have offered deemed rent for taxation in respect of one flat. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) confronted the assessee with the remand report obtained from the A.O. The assessee submitted that the builder has entered into one single agreement for flat No. 601 and 602 which was given to the assessee in lieu of the old tenanted premises being Room No. 8, 9, and 10 in Popat Niwas. Further, there is only one entrance for the two flats which abundantly prove that both the premises are used as single unit having common kitchen. It was further submitted that the information in respect of flat No. 601 and 602 in Gaurav Plaza was gathered from the balance sheet itself and there is no question of concealing any income in respect of the other flat. It was accordingly submitted that notional income added by the A.O. should be deleted. 3.3 However, The ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation given by the assessee. According to her no area map has been submitted to show that the units were to be considered as single unit. According to her the assessee should have offere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the lower authorities that both the flats are self occupied having only one common entrance and common kitchen. Even the Ward inspector in his report had also submitted that the assessee had made alteration after obtaining the flats and there is only one entrance for both the flats. We find there is sufficient force in the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that both the flats are used as a single unit house property for residential purposes of the family members. The observation of the ld. CIT(A) that no area map has been submitted to show that the units were to be considered as single one in our opinion is un-called after the report of the Ward Inspector communicated to the CIT(A) by the A.O. in the remand report. We, therefore, hold that the assessee, who is the owner of flat No. 601 and 602 at Gaurav Plaza has occupied both the flats as a single unit for the purpose of residence of his family members and therefore no notional rent can be brought to tax. In this view of the matter we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 by the assessee are allowed. 7. Ground of appeal No. 3 by the assessee reads as under:- " The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings the A.O. asked the assessee to show the nexus of rent received and the claim of interest on housing loan. In absence of any evidence furnished by the assessee and rejecting the unsatisfactory explanation given by the assessee the A.O. disallowed the claim of deduction of interest amounting to Rs.1,38,334/-. 8.2 In appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. by holding as under:- " Similarly ground No. 4 is in respect of disallowance of interest paid on loan said to have been taken for purchase of house property. I find that the Assessing Officer has investigated this issue in details and has come to the conclusion that the loan has been taken from Corporation and Oriental Bank of Commerce from assessment year 2002-03 onwards on which the interest has been paid and claimed as deduction. The appellant has not been able to prove that this loan has been taken for purchase of house property against which income has been declared under the head income from house property. The Assessing Officer further goes to say that interest on housing loan was first time claimed in assessment year 2002-03 which would make it obvious that the loan was taken in that year bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
