TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961(in brevity the Act) for A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19. The impugned orders were originated from the order of the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-1, Jalandhar, (in brevity the AO) the order passed u/s. 153C read with section 144 of the Act, date of order 12.02.2021. As these are assessee's own appeals involving common issues, they are being disposed of by this composite order. Facts, for convenience, are being taken ITA No. 121/Asr/2022, for A.Y. 2018-19 as lead case. 2. The following grounds have been raised therein: "1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly allowed only 50% of claim of interest on housing loan = Rs. 117,327 x 50% =58,664 u/s. 24(b), instead of 100% by holding that appellant's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of return. During the assessment proceedings the assessment was completed u/s. 144. The assessee challenged the orders of the ld. AO before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee applied under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for admission of additional evidence during the appeal hearing. The for claim u/s. 24 and for deduction section 80C which was not taken in the return which was prayed to consider during the appeal hearing. Only the deduction for HBL interest u/s. 24 was allowed @50% of in the hands of the assessee. The other issues are remained untouched & upheld order of the ld. AO partly. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us for judicious consideration. 4. During hearing before the ITAT, two basic points are agitated by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. AO can not be sustained without filing the revised return. He respectfully relied on Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 3231 (SC). 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Mr. Tarun Bansal, argued and submitted that the deductions are claimed during the appeal hearing and ld. CIT(A). For, clear understanding the submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as below. The said appeal order page no. 2 para 3 is extracted as below:- "3. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant submitted arguments as under: "Sub: Written submission in the case of Sh. Ajay Sharma, Guru Sangam, Punjabi Bagh, Kapurthala -144601, Punjab. A.Y. 2018-19, PAN AOOPS3250C Your Honour it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 Balance 3,58,067 3. That copy of ITR and computation of income is also attached. 4. Your Honour, the appellant has also e- filled a reply on 08.07.2021 vide Acknowledgement No. 1380862210808721 which may please be considered, copy of the same is attached." 6.1. As per the ld. Counsel, the assessee is eligible for the claim of deduction during the time of appeal proceeding. The ld. Counsel respectfully relied on the judgment of High Court of Delhi, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-II v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. [2008] 172 TAXMAN 258/306 ITR 42 (DELHI); "16. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 6882 while dealing with the powers of the Appellate Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the power of Tribunal." 6.2. Mr. Bansal further relied respectfully in the case of Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1992] 64 Taxman 129 (Delhi); "23. The Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India's case (supra), specifically approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rai Kumar Srimal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 525, wherein it had been held that the AAC was entitled to admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Premium Rs. 17,770/- was not claimed during the filing of return and same for tuition fee and repayment of HBL amount of Rs. 19,440/- and Rs. 2996/- respectively. The copy of the receipts as proof of payments are enclosed in APB 15, 19, and 21. In case interest on HBL the deduction u/s. 24B is fully allowed for the assessee, read with section 22 of the Act. The wife of the assessee is not an owner but a co-borrower. She is not eligible for claim of interest as per the Act. We direct the revenue to allow the balance deduction U/s 24, interest on HBL to assessee. 7.1. We respectfully consider the order of Goetz India Ltd., supra. The catena of judgments is produced by the ld. Council before the Bench. The orders of the Hon'ble Delhi ....