9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in I.T.A No.08/CIT(A)-18/2017-18 dated 12.04.2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has sold property for a consideration of Rs. 1,61,32,000/- and he has declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivities and for no other purpose. The assessee was required to utilize the allotment of land only for constructing industrial work sheds and for running an industry for which it was intended and allotted therefore, it was clear that the very nature of the property purchased for industrial and not a residential house. Therefore, denying the claim u/s. 54F of the Act. He further noted that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which he is not entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and therefore, it is a clear concealment and the A.O has rightly levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has sold a property and pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Therefore, the A.O denied the claim u/s. 54 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed and ITAT also finally upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). So far as penalty is concerned, the assessee simply made a claim, which is not acceptable to the A.O, penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act automatically as has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
