Tribunal held that a genuine arrangement could not be disregarded because it resulted or operated to minimise the assessee’s tax liability. Therefore interest claimed qua the entire property could not be allowed in full against the rental income, which was qua a part of the house property. Therefore the assessee’s interest claim could not be allowed in full and shall have to be suitably proportioned, even as agreed to by the assessee, restricting the interest claim relatable to the self-occupied part thereof to, as allowed, Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The assessee shall provide a reasonable basis for such allocation as well as the working of the area let. In view of the joint residence, be that no area (portion) was specified in the rent agreements. The number of family members living jointly, their living requirements – which may not be uniform, fair rental value of the property, etc., were some of the parameters which could be considered for the purpose. The Assessing Officer shall adjudicate thereon by a speaking order, giving definite reasons for being in disagreement, where so, in whole or in part, with the assessee’s working, within a reasonable time.( AY.2009-10)
Md. Hussain Habib Pathan v. Asst. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 63(SN))/ ( 2021) 186 ITD 373 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 24 : Income from house property – Deductions – Interest on borrowed capital — Part of self-owned house property let to unmarried son and daughter —No evidence that arrangement not genuine — Loss on account of interest to be adjusted against rental income —Interest on entire property not allowable as rental income part of house property. [ S.24(1)(b) ]