PARKASH CHAND Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INCOME TAX OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
Sushma Chowla, Member (J) -
(1.) THE appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income -tax, Patiala dated 20.03.2014 against the order passed under section 263 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
"1. That order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income -tax, Patiala is against law & facts on the file inasmuch as he was not justified to hold that order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the ITO Ward 1, Sangrur is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
(2.) THE learned Commissioner of Income -tax gravely erred in giving contradictory directions regarding investment in land. The learned Commissioner of Income -tax failed to appreciate the import of detailed submission made before coming to the conclusion to hold that assessment order dated 23.8.2011 is erroneous inasmuch as prejudicial to the interest of revenue."
2. The present appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of revision passed under section 263 of the Income -tax Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.08.2011 on a total income of Rs. 1,58,990/ - as against returned income of Rs. 1,33,990/ -. The Commissioner of Income -tax, on the perusal of records noted that the assessee had sold land for Rs. 29,35,000/ - against which it had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. The sale consideration in entirety was received in cash against which the residential plot measuring 666.66 sq.yds. was purchased for total consideration of Rs. 11,62,300/ - including Stamp Duty charges. The balance sum of Rs. 17,72,700/ - was claimed to have been invested in the construction on the said plot. The Commissioner of Income Tax observed that the assessee had failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding construction on the said plot, neither any approval for construction of plot from the Municipal Committee was available on record nor any map was available on record. Further, the assessee had failed to furnish bills of construction. The Assessing Officer had failed to make any enquiry. The Commissioner of Income -tax was of the view that there was no justification in the deduction allowed under section 54F of the Act. Show Cause Notice dated 11/12.12.2013 was issued to the assessee, the contents of which are reproduced at pages 1 and 2 of the order passed under section 263 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted written submissions which are reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the said order. The plea of the assessee was that photocopy of the Purchase Deed of the plot was filed alongwith return of income and further copy of bank loan taken for construction of the residential house was also filed. The supporting documents regarding map and other papers were produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings.
(3.) ANOTHER plea raised by the assessee was that the bank loan was disbursed in instalments which proved that construction was in progress. The assessee further submitted the copy of approved map before the Commissioner of Income -tax which was claimed to have been produced during the assessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax on analysis of the document noted that the assessee had furnished copies of purchase and sale deed of the houses and had further furnished capital account which is credited with the cash received as sale consideration. Further withdrawals were made from the said account.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.