Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHIEntitlement to deduction u/s 54F - disallowance of expenses on property and interest paid on loan - Held that:- Assessee had advanced claim in regard to computation of long term capital gain after giving the details of purchase cost and the improvement cost over 4 years. The indexed cost of acquisition was accordingly computed. 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. 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 ₹ 5,55,00/- as against ₹ 10,000/- being the sale consideration therefore, he allowed only proportionate deduction. This was solely on account of difference in opinion between assessee and Ld. CIT(A). Under these facts there is no question of levying penalty in view of various case laws relied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submission. Levy of penalty apropos disallowance of interest paid to Smt. Prem Lata Jain the disallowance has been made only because the capital of the assessee was much lower than the investments made by assessee in properties and shares. However, it is not in dispute that assessee had shown business assets aggregating to ₹ 3,28,856/-. The assessing officer had required the assessee to show as to why interest paid to Smt. Prem Lata Jain ₹ 32,600/- be not disallowed as investment in non business assets, properties and shares was much more than capital. On this basis it was inferred that loan of Smt. Prem Lata Jain had not been utilized for business purpose. The assessing officer has not demonstrated any nexus between the amounts received from Smt. Prem Lata Jain and its utilization for non business purposes. Thus it cannot be a basis for at least levying penalty because there is no finding that loan was actually utilized for non business purposes. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|