TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bad in law, illegal, invalid, void ab initio on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2. Rs.1,56,556/-. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in not giving the benefit of Rs.1,56,556/- made by the AO on account of interest paid on house loan and erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,56,556/- on account of house property which is allowable as per law, also erred in not considering the material in the true perspective and sense. Hence, the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the record and hence the same ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.1,56,556/- on house loan. The ld. AR submitted that all these details are reflecting in Form 16 and while filing the return of income the assessee had shown headwise income and deduction. Thus all these calculations are available in the computation of total income (PBP 11 to 13). As regards the income of House property, the ld. AR has also submitted following total income of house property while uploading the I.T. Return. Gross Rent Received Rs.4,20,000/- 30% deduction Rs.1.26.000/- Interest Payable Rs.1,56,556/- Income chargeable under the head 'House Property' Rs.1.37,444/- The ld. AR thus stressed upon his submission that while uploading the IT return the calculation or income of house property as well in the computation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that in order to provide justice to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) should have asked the assessee to file the copy of home loan but it was not demanded by him and thus rejected the claim of the assessee. The ld. AR further prayed that when the interest claim has not been taken in the ITR then as to why the total income has not been increased when all the calculations are automatic and if the assessee had not taken the interest claim then he could not have shown the Income Chargeable under the head 'House Property'' at Rs.1,37,444/- rather than the same should have come to Rs.2,94,000/- (Rs.1,37,444 plus 1,56,556/-). He further submitted that it is not the first year of claim of house loan interest but the assessee is claiming the same si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....56/- to returned income under the head of House Property Income which was wrongly calculated by the assessee in his return of income. Against the assessment order of the AO, the assessee filed rectification application for which the CPC, Bengaluru passed an order u/s 154 of the Act rejecting the request of the assessee. However, in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ''4. On verification of the copy of the return filed by the appellant, it is found that there was no any claim of interest payable on borrowed capital. In that column i.e. in the column B2(v), it is mentioned as Nil. There are no any merit in the claim of the appellant that the ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on....