Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Sri Poorna Prakash Karkala , Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(3), ... on 26 October, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC-C" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2499/Bang/2018
Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shri Poorna Prakash Karkala,
No. 505, 'C', Wilson Manor
Apartments,
The Income Tax Officer,
Arekimphalli,
Vs. Ward - 3 (3) (3),
13th Cross,
Bangalore.
Wilson Garden,
Bangalore - 560 027.
PAN: ADCPR4410N
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri C. Sandeep, CA
Revenue by : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 17.10.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2018
ORDER
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Bangalore dated 02.07.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-
10.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under.
"1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of interest claimed u/s. 24(b) to the extent of Rs. 8,05,086/-.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant has evaded the stamp duty by registering at the lower value even though the appellant has registered the land at guidance value and the finding of the learned CIT(A) is perverse.4. Nagarjuna Green Ridge - Flat No. 301
4.1. That the learned Commissioner erred in law and on facts in holding that the loan has not been utilized for purchase of land and modifications/improvements to the flat on the ground that the loan has been sanctioned much later than the cost incurred which is incorrect ITA No.2499/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 4 on the facts.
4.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the loan has been utilized for purchase of flat based on the letter for sanction of loan, interest certificate and statement of loan disbursement.5. Nagarjuna Green Woods - Flat No. 105
5.1. That the learned Commissioner erred in law and on facts in holding that the loan has notbeen utilized for purchase of land, construction and modifications/improvements to the flat the ground that the loan has been sanctioned much later than the cost incurred which is incorrect on the facts.
5.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the loan has been utilized for purchase of flat based on the letter for sanction of loan, interest certificate and statement of loan disbursement.6. Premier Residency - Flat No. 201
6.1. That the learned Commissioner erred in law and on facts in holding that the loan has not been utilized for purchase of land, construction and modifications/improvements to the flat the ground that the loan has been sanctioned much later than the cost incurred which is incorrect on the facts.
6.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the loan has been utilized for purchase of flat based on the letter for sanction of loan, interest certificate and statement of loan disbursement.
Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal."
3. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that a paper book has been filed by the assessee containing 234 pages and out of various documents filed in this paper book, there are various additional evidences such as
a) Loan sanction letter dated 19.05.2004 from IDBI,
b) Loan sanction letter from UTI Bank for Rs. 22 Lakhs
c) Permission letter from Nagarjuna Construction Co for Mortgage
d) Loan agreement dated 24.02.2005 between IDBI Bank and assessee
e) Agreement to Build (Supplementary) dated 28.11.2006
f) Loan sanction letter dated 03.12.2005 from IDBI ITA No.2499/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 4
g) Loan sanction letter dated 11.12.2006 from IDBI
h) Loan sanction letter dated 11.07.2008 from IDBI
4. He submitted that a request letter dated 24.09.2018 requesting for leave to file the additional evidences is also filed. He also submitted that in view of these various additional evidences, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after considering the additional evidences which are already filed or other documents which may be filed before CIT (A). He also submitted that the issue in present case is regarding allowability of interest u/s. 24B of IT Act in respect of three properties owned by the assessee being a) Flat No. 301-Nagarjuna Green Ridge, b) Flat No. 105 - Nagarjuna Green Woods and c) Flat No. 201 - Premier Residency. Regarding first property i.e. Flat No. 301-Nagarjuna Green Ridge, he submitted that in this regard, the relevant ground raised by assessee is 4.1 and the decision of CIT (A) in this regard is as per para no. 4.18 of the order of CIT (A). He pointed out that as per this para of the order of CIT (A), he has noted that the loan of Rs. 8 Lakhs which has been claimed by the assessee to have been used for the purchase of this property had been sanctioned to the assessee by IDBI Bank on 15.10.2005. He drawn my attention to page no. 55 of the paper book being the additional evidence and pointed out that in the loan sanction letter dated 19.05.2004, the loan amount is Rs. 19 Lakhs and not Rs. 8 Lakhs. Thereafter he drawn my attention to page no. 56 of the paper book and pointed out that this was filed before CIT (A) and AO both and as per this sanction letter which is dated 11.10.2005 as stated by CIT (A), there is house loan of Rs. 8 Lakhs but this is not a fresh sanction but enhancement of earlier sanction and this part has been totally missed by the authorities below.
5. At this juncture, this proposition was put forward by the bench that in view of various additional evidences which the assessee wants to bring on record and non appreciation of evidences in proper manner filed before lower authorities, it will be proper if the matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after considering these additional evidences which are already brought on record before the Tribunal and other evidences which he may bring on record before CIT(A) if the matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A). In reply both sides agreed to this proposition put forward by the ITA No.2499/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 4 bench. In view of the above discussion, I feel it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) in respect of all three properties and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after considering the additional evidences which the assessee have already brought on record before the Tribunal and he should also consider some other additional evidences which the assessee may bring on record before CIT(A) in course of set aside proceedings and thereafter, pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Sd/-
(ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, the 26th October, 2018.
/MS/ Copy to:
1. Appellant 4. CIT(A)
2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore
3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.