9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 342 - AT - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 54F - CIT(A) allowed the additional evidences submitted by the assessee - HELD THAT - AO has specifically mentioned the documents produced by the assessee which includes the statements, affidavits, agreements, bills, vouchers regarding the various works got done in respect of the construction of the house. The AO has not given any adverse comments or even not doubted the correctness of the evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, when the AO himself was satisfied with the evidence produced by the assessee, then the claim of deduction under section 54F allowed by the CIT (A) based on the additional evidence as well as remand report of the AO cannot be disturbed in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the department. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT (A) qua the issue of allowing the deduction under section 54F of the IT Act. Deduction u/s 54B - agricultural land purchased by the assessee in the name of his son and daughter-in-law - CIT-A allowed the claim - HELD THAT - Evidence produced by the assessee being Jamabandi, Girdawari report etc. is only in respect of the land purchased by the assessee and not in respect of the land sold by the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the ld. CIT (A) is based on presumption of wrong facts and rather based on the facts which are contrary to the material on record. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue and restore the order of the AO denying the claim of deduction under section 54B Disallowance of cost of development of land - claim allowed by the ld. CIT (A) - HELD THAT - Facts recorded by the ld. CIT (A) that the payment was made towards construction of the area admeasuring 450 ft. @ ₹ 400/- per ft has been reflected in the evidence produced by the assessee. The AO has not pointed out any defect in the evidence produced by the assessee in support of the claim. Accordingly, in the absence of any contrary fact or material, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT (A) qua this issue. Disallowance of transfer expenses - claim allowed by the ld. CIT (A) - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the assessee produced the evidence in support of the claim and the AO has not made any comment in the remand report about the correctness of the evidence produced by the assessee, then the decision of the ld. CIT (A) based on the evidence cannot be disturbed when the AO himself has not made any comment in the remand report. Reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 - HELD THAT - The AO has clearly recorded in the reasons that during the enquiry proceedings the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of the claim. Therefore, the claim of deduction of ₹ 2,41,59179/- was found to be not substantiated by any evidence. This result of enquiry itself constitutes a tangible material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax in the form of excess claim of deduction has escaped assessment. We further note that even during the reassessment proceedings the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the claim and only in the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee first time produced the documentary evidence. Therefore, in these peculiar facts of the case, we do not find any defect or illegality in the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. The AO has done his best prior to initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 by conducting an enquiry in respect of the claim of deduction of ₹ 2.41 crores against the sale consideration of ₹ 2.43 crores - No substance or merit in the cross objection filed by the assessee. The same is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A. 2. Deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 3. Deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act. 4. Disallowance of Cost of Improvement. 5. Disallowance of Transfer Expenses. 6. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A: The revenue contested that the CIT (A) accepted additional evidence contrary to Rule 46A, despite the AO's objections. The AO noted that sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee to produce the evidence during the assessment proceedings. However, the assessee failed to do so, citing illness of the assessee or his son. The CIT (A) admitted the additional evidence and called for a remand report from the AO, who examined and accepted the evidence without adverse comments. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)’s decision to accept the additional evidence. 2. Deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act: The AO disallowed the deduction under Section 54F due to lack of evidence during reassessment proceedings. The CIT (A) allowed the deduction after considering additional evidence, including a Valuation Report and various statements, affidavits, agreements, and bills. The AO, in the remand report, did not dispute the correctness of these documents. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 54F, as the AO had verified and accepted the evidence during remand proceedings. 3. Deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act: The AO disallowed the deduction under Section 54B, arguing that the new agricultural land was purchased in the names of the assessee's son and daughter-in-law, which is contrary to the precedent set by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Kalya vs. CIT. The CIT (A) allowed the deduction, but the Tribunal noted that the land sold was converted to non-agricultural use prior to the sale, violating the condition that the land must be used for agricultural purposes for two years preceding the sale. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (A)'s order and restored the AO's decision to disallow the deduction under Section 54B. 4. Disallowance of Cost of Improvement: The AO disallowed the cost of improvement due to lack of documentary evidence. The CIT (A) allowed the claim based on vouchers produced by the assessee, which were not commented upon by the AO in the remand report. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not dispute the correctness of the vouchers provided by the assessee. 5. Disallowance of Transfer Expenses: The AO disallowed the transfer expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The assessee produced payment vouchers for brokerage, which the AO did not comment on in the remand report. The CIT (A) allowed the claim based on these vouchers. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, as the AO did not provide any adverse comments on the evidence. 6. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee contested the reopening of the assessment, arguing that it was based on an enquiry to ascertain the correctness of the return. The AO reopened the assessment based on information from the Investigation Wing and the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence during enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal found that the AO had tangible material to form the belief that income had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening. The Tribunal dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee, upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal by upholding the AO's decision to disallow the deduction under Section 54B and dismissed the cross objection of the assessee, confirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decisions regarding the acceptance of additional evidence, and the deductions under Sections 54F, cost of improvement, and transfer expenses.
|
