TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given only at the time of registration, which never took place - The genuineness of the iqrarnama was in doubt and there was no material to establish that possession of the said property was taken over by the assessee and on this point also the assessee could not be held to have fulfilled the conditions of section 54 of the Act - levy of penalty confirmed - Decided against the assessee - I. T. A. No. 49/Chd/2011, - - - Dated:- 17-11-2011 - D. K. Srivastava, Sushma Chowla, JJ. M. R. Sharma for the Appellant N. K. Saini for the Respondent ORDER Sushma Chowla, Judicial Member:- The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated November 18, 2010 relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee after recording the satisfaction to the effect that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income/concealed its income to explain the said amount. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 5,61,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the return filed by making a false claim, which was not substantiated by any evidence. The Com missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further held that it was not a mere claim of the assessee, which was not sustainable in law, but was a false claim which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler and all the documents executed, could not be proved. In the abovesaid circumstances the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence liable to penalty leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The asses see during the year under consideration had in his return of income claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act on account of investment in house against the income from capital gain earned by the assessee. The plea of the assessee was that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was utilised for the purchase of a new residential house, in support of which iqrarnama executed on May 10, 2005 was furnished by the assessee. The assessee was unable to prove the authenticity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. The entire transaction claimed to have been made as per the iqrarnama is by way of cash. It is noteworthy that the iqrarnama stands cancelled on June 13, 2006. The so-called seller has neither been produced and nor his identity established on the basis of any material or evidence. All these aspects, clearly demonstrate that the assessee has not been able to substantiate on the basis of any clinching evidence the authenticity of the impugned iqrarnama. There is nothing on record also to establish that the assessee had actually taken the possession of the house in question. In fact, in the course of hearing, it was pointed out to learned counsel with reference to the backside of page 7 of the paper book that the iqrarnama shows that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authenticity of the iqrarnama in question. Further, it was held that there is nothing on record to establish that the assessee had actually taken possession of the house in question as the backside of page 7 of the paper book revealed that the possession had to be given only at the time of registration, which never took place. The assessee having failed to furnish on record any evidence to establish that the possession of the said property was handed over to him on the payment of the consideration in cash, the benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Act was denied to the asses see. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the facts of the present case before us, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act, which was found not allowable to the assessee on mere technicalities, and the claim was found false as the veracity of the iqrarnama, the document in question, on which the claim of the assessee was based, could not be established. The genuineness of the iqrarnama was in doubt and there was no material to establish that possession of the said property was taken over by the assessee and on this point also the assessee could not be held to have fulfilled the conditions of section 54 of the Act. The assessee is thus, exigible to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Upholding the same we dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
