2016 (7) TMI 380 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F - cost on improvement - assessee failed to claim the deduction as cost on improvement rather it was claimed as deduction u/s 54F of the Act at the time of filing of revised return - Held that - On examining the facts of the case of assessee with respect to the provisions of section 54F of the Act it seems that assessee is trying to take benefit of section 54F of the Act by one way or the other without placing on record any satisfactory evidence to prove that investment has been made in residential house and is only bending to an agreement that too made on the last day of the Asst. Year which has not attained finality in the subsequent period. As at the time of filing revised return of income assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for ₹ 3,06,250/- claiming the same as investment in residential house but when the matter came up before ld. CIT(A) the facts relating to the impugned claim of ₹ 3,06,250/- were put forth by the assessee through which it was made clear that ₹ 3,06,250/- was actually the cost of improvement which the assessee was entitled to deduction from the sale consideration. This fact gets further proved when we looked into the income-tax return of other co-owners who have claimed deduction as cost of improvement incurred towards construction of the immovable property which has been sold thereafter. However, assessee failed to claim the deduction of ₹ 3,06,250/- as cost on improvement rather it was claimed as deduction u/s 54F of the Act at the time of filing of revised return. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that assessee is not eligible for any deduction u/s 54F of the Act as there has been no investment in a residential property and also the claim of the assessee for getting deduction of ₹ 306,250/- incurred towards cost of construction, to be reduced from the sale consideration of ₹ 7,50,000/- shown, cannot be entertained as it was not claimed in the return of income and certainly one cannot get the benefit of rightful claim if it has not been put forth in the return of income and in the given case assessee has changed the stories for getting deduction of ₹ 3,06,250/- and has miserably failed to make proper claim at the right place. - Decided against assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?3,06,250/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
2. Filing of relevant details by the appellant.
3. Charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Deletion of the addition confirmed by the CIT(A).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?3,06,250/- Made by the Assessing Officer:
The primary issue revolves around the addition of ?3,06,250/- disallowed by the AO under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO disallowed this deduction on the grounds that the assessee failed to prove the investment in a residential property. The assessee initially claimed that the amount was invested in a residential property purchased from his brother and grandmother, which could not be registered due to his father's death. However, during the appeal, the assessee changed his stance, claiming the amount was actually reimbursement for construction costs incurred by his relatives on a guesthouse. The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided inconsistent explanations and failed to substantiate the claim with satisfactory evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance, stating that the assessee did not make any investment in a residential property as required under Section 54F.

2. Filing of Relevant Details by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that all necessary details to substantiate his claim were filed in the form of a paper book along with written submissions. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant presented different stories at various stages, which were not consistent with the initial claim made during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide credible evidence to support the claim of investment in a residential property or the reimbursement of construction costs. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal.

3. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The appellant raised a ground against the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that this ground is consequential in nature, implying that the decision on this matter would depend on the outcome of the primary issue regarding the addition of ?3,06,250/-. Since the primary issue was decided against the assessee, the consequential ground regarding interest under Section 234B was also dismissed.

4. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The appellant contested the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that this ground is premature as the penalty proceedings are separate and independent of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on this ground, stating that it needs no adjudication at this stage.

5. Deletion of the Addition Confirmed by the CIT(A):
The appellant sought the deletion of the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after examining the facts and submissions, concluded that the assessee failed to make a proper claim under the right provisions of the Act and provided inconsistent explanations. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of ?3,06,250/-, dismissing the appellant's ground for deletion of the addition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the addition of ?3,06,250/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim of investment in a residential property or reimbursement of construction costs with credible evidence. The grounds related to the charging of interest under Section 234B and initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were also dismissed or deemed premature. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of making a proper claim under the correct provisions of the Income Tax Act and providing consistent and credible evidence to support such claims.

← Previous Next →