9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,323/-.Mere disallowance of certain expenses claimed by assessee as cost of acquisition could not lead to the conclusion that assessee had advanced any false claim only because assessee was unable to substantiate the same with reference to specific vouchers. Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - Regarding assessee’s claim u/s 54F. Ld. CIT(A) has clearly observed that assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction u/s 54F and, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee had advanced any false claim. It is not in dispute that assessee had been allotted a residential plot in CHD City Sector 45 Karnol on the basis of which he ha advanced claim u/s 54 F which was in principle accepted by Ld. CIT(A) but since the total consideration was only ₹ 5,55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal, JCIT ORDER PER S. V. MEHROTRA, AM The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 2/12/2013 of CIT(A)Rohtak, , New Delhi in Appeal No. 8/RTK/2012-13. 2. The assessee has filed his return of income declaring an income of ₹ 4,61,180/-. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee had sold a residential plot no. 285 Sector 2HSIDC, Croth Centre, Bawal, Distt, Rewari on 3rd March 2008 for a consideration of ₹ 10 lakhs. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54 to the tune of ₹ 5,55,00/- in his return of income. The computation of capital gain, filed by the assessee, along with his return of income, is reproduced hereunder:- 285, Sector-2, G.C. Bawal 1/3/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allotment letter dated 27th July 2003 in respect of property No. 285 Sector 2HSIDC, Bawal. The assessee filed following reply:- That all the payments to HSIDC(Govt. Industrial Corp) are made through DD. The bank statement regarding DD issued and some receipts are enclosed. Further the copy of conveyance deed executed with that corporation before executing the sale, which is mandatory, is also enclosed where it is clearing mentioned that payment of ₹ 324000/- has already been made since 21/7/2003. 4. The Assessing Officer accepted that assessee had purchased this property for ₹ 3,24,00/-and had incurred expenditure of ₹ 20,200/- for the conveyance deed. He accordingly computed cost of acquisition, indexed cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer noticed from the documents filed by the assessee in support of his claim for deduction u/s 54F, that assessee had made investment of ₹ 5,55,00/- in a Plot with CHD Developers Karnol. The Assessing Officer noticed that though assesses had shown that he had made an investment in Flat but as per allotment letter issued by CHD Developers. The assessee had been allotted a plot by the CHD Developers. Accordingly, assessee was again show caused as to how deduction u/s 54F was allowable to him on purchase of plot because as per the allotment letter of CHD Developers, assessee was allotted a residential plot in CHD City Sector 54 Karnol. The assesses filed following reply:- Deduction u/s 54F : The documents regarding all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42/- in shares and securities. Accordingly, he disallowed the interest paid to Smt. Prem Lata amounting to ₹ 32,600/- being for non business purposes. 8. Ld. CIT(A) allowed proportionate deduction u/s 54F and confirmed the addition in respect of under point of disallowance of interest. 9. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assesssee s appeal after considering the assessee s written submissions. 10. The assessee in his written submissions filed before me through post,inter alia, submits that before the Ld. CIT(A) the written submissions dated 9/11/2013 were filed explaining the main issue of investment and claim u/s 54F was accepted and proportionate deduction allowed. On disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessing officer, however, only took into consideration the amount paid as per allotment letter and expenses on conveyance deed. The assessee in its reply, as reproduced earlier, stated that all the payments were made through DD. The AO did not accept the entire cost of acquisition claimed at ₹ 4,20,323/-.Mere disallowance of certain expenses claimed by assessee as cost of acquisition could not lead to the conclusion that assessee had advanced any false claim only because assessee was unable to substantiate the same with reference to specific vouchers. The next issue is regarding assessee s claim u/s 54F. Ld. CIT(A) has clearly observed that assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction u/s 54F and, therefore, it cannot be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
