Sections 23, 24(b) – Where assessee is receiving rent from his own son and daughter who are financially independent, property is both a self-occupied and a let-out property – Consequently, interest claim cannot be allowed in full and shall have to be suitably proportioned, restricting the interest claim relatable to the self-occupied part thereof to Rs. 1.50 lakhs

1.       [2020]
115 taxmann.com 179 (Mum.)

Md. Hussain Habib Pathan vs. ACIT

ITA No. 4058/Mum/2013

A.Y.: 2009-10

Date of order: 5^th March, 2020

Sections 23, 24(b) – Where assessee is receiving rent from
his own son and daughter who are financially independent, property is both a
self-occupied and a let-out property – Consequently, interest claim cannot be
allowed in full and shall have to be suitably proportioned, restricting the
interest claim relatable to the self-occupied part thereof to Rs. 1.50 lakhs

The children of the assessee were financially independent;
so instead of just transferring some money to their father, they wanted it to
be regarded (by mutual agreement) as rent – They believed that thus he would
receive funds in the shape of rent and that would also help meet their father’s
(the assessee’s) interest burden and help him with some tax savings – It was to
be regarded as a genuine arrangement in order to minimise assessee’s tax
liability

FACTS

The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 15,32,120 qua his
residential house property in Mumbai. He claimed that he had incurred interest
on borrowed capital of Rs. 21,62,120 which was adjusted against rental income
of Rs. 9,00,000; this (rent), on a field inquiry, was found by the A.O. to be
from the assessee’s major son and major daughter residing in the said property
along with other family members of the assessee.

The A.O. was of the view that nobody would charge rent (for
residence) from his own son and daughter, particularly considering that both
are unmarried and living together with their family at its self-owned abode.
The arrangement was therefore regarded as merely a tax-reducing device adopted
by the assessee and liable to be ignored. Treating the house property as a
self-occupied property, the A.O. restricted the claim of interest u/s 24(b) to
Rs. 1,50,000.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
confirmed the action.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal
where he contended that there is nothing to show that the arrangement, which is
duly supported by written agreements furnished in the assessment proceedings,
is fake or make-believe. Rental income cannot be overlooked or disregarded
merely because it arises from close family members. However, on a query from
the Bench, the counsel for the assessee was not able to state the status, i.e.,
self-occupied or rented, of the said premises for the earlier or subsequent
years, though he submitted that this is the first year of the claim of loss. He
was also unable to tell the Bench about the area let out, i.e., out of the
total area available, inasmuch as other family members, including the assessee,
were also residing in the same premises.

The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, was of no cognisance
being accorded to an arrangement which is against human probabilities and
clearly a device to avoid tax.

HELD

The Tribunal observed that the arrangement is highly unusual,
particularly considering that the rent is in respect of a self-owned property
(i.e., for which no rent is being paid), which constituted the family’s
residence, and with the assessee’s son and daughter both being unmarried.
However, the Bench felt that that may not be conclusive in the matter. Being a
private arrangement not involving any third party, not informing the
co-operative housing society was also found to be of not much consequence. It also
observed that the Revenue has rested on merely doubting the genuineness of the
arrangement without probing the facts further. What was the total area, as well
as its composition / profile? How many family members, besides the assessee
(the owner) and the two ‘tenants’, were resided thereat? Has the area let out
been specified, allowing private space (a separate bedroom each) to the son and
the daughter who would in any case be also provided access to or use of the
common area – specified or not so in the agreement/s, viz. kitchen, balcony,
living area, bathrooms, etc.? How had the rent been received, in cash or
through a bank and, further, how had it been sourced, whether from the assessee
(or any other family member), or from the capital / income of the ‘tenants’?
Why was there no attempt even to inquire whether the arrangement was a
subsisting / continuing one, or confined to a year or two, strongly suggestive
in the latter case of a solely tax-motivated exercise?

The Tribunal held that it could, however, well be that the
assessee’s major son and daughter are financially independent (or substantially
so), with independent incomes, sharing the interest burden of their common
residence with their father. As such, instead of transferring funds to him have
decided by mutual agreement to give the amounts as rent as that would, apart
from meeting the interest burden to that extent, also allow tax saving to the
assessee-father. A genuine arrangement cannot be disregarded just because it
results in or operates to minimise the assessee’s tax liability. The Tribunal
found itself in agreement with the assessee’s claim inasmuch as there was
nothing on record to further the Revenue’s case of the arrangement not being a
genuine one, but just that it was an unusual one.

However, on quantum the Tribunal found the stand of the
assessee infirm. It held that the house property, that is, the family residence
of the Pathan family, was both a self-occupied and a let-out property in view
of the rent agreements. It observed that the interest claimed (Rs. 21.62 lakhs)
is qua the entire property, which therefore cannot be allowed in full
against the rental income, which is qua only a part of the house
property. The assessee’s interest claim therefore cannot be allowed in full and
shall have to be suitably proportioned, restricting the interest claim
relatable to the self-occupied part thereof to Rs. 1.50 lakhs as allowed. The
assessee shall provide a reasonable basis for such allocation as well as the
working of the area let out. It observed that it may well be that in view of
the joint residence, no area (portion) is 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. are some of the
parameters which could be considered for the purpose. The Tribunal directed the
A.O. to adjudicate thereon per a speaking order, giving definite reasons for
being in disagreement, whether in whole or in part, with the assessee’s claim
within a reasonable time.

The Tribunal allowed this ground of appeal filed by the
assessee.