9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it is not exigible to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid disallowance as the claim made by the assessee vis a vis the cost of construction in the immovable property was found to be a false claim and the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of establishing that it had undertaken the aforesaid construction of the immovable asset. Merely because the assessee had reflected certain amount of expenditure claimed to be on account of construction of property in its balance sheet does not entitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act being the amount spent on construction of the asset on sale of residential property. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances where the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant filed her return of income on 30.10.2006 declaring income amounting to ₹ 2,02,180/- as per detail given below:- i) Salary derived from M/s Malwa Gas Service ₹ 40,500/- ii) Boutique income ₹ 1,61,680/- iii) Capital gain after claiming exemption under section 54F Nil The Assessing officer passed order dated 31.8.2010, Annexure A.1 under section 143(3) of the Act making additions on various counts and disallowed the claim of exemption under section 54 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of exemption claimed under Section 54 amounting to ₹ 8,52,979/- was upheld. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee-appellant submitted that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars with regard to claim under Section 54F of the Act. In such a situation, levy of penalty was unjustified. Support was drawn from judgments of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs.Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, (1972) 83 ITR 369 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited, (2010) 322 ITR 158. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that no evidence of construction was produced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the exemption claimed in respect of expenditure incurred on construction was denied by the Assessing Officer as the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the same during the assessment proceedings. The balance long term capital gains was brought to tax by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(appeals) upheld the additions as the assessee had failed to discharge the onus to submit the requisite proof in respect of expenditure made on construction of house. Merely because the amount spent on expenditure made on construction of the property was reflected in the balance sheet filed alongwith the return of income does not establish the claim of the assessee as the assessee had failed to produce bills or vouchers or any pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
