TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has disallowed the claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO who had levied interest U/s. 234A, B & C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of selling mutton and sheep, filed his return of income for the relevant AY on 31/3/2014 declaring his total taxable income as 1,78,000/-. Initially the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act, subsequently the case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and thereafter the assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 13/1/2015 wherein the Ld. AO disallowed the claim of deduction U/s. 54 of the Act. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng as follows: - "4.3 From the careful. observation of agreement of sale dated 6.5.2012. end sale deed 19.12.2012, the following Discrepancies are noticed (I) There is no date of issue of stamp paper on the deed of agreement, of sale dated 5.5.2012. (II) It clearly appears that this agreement of sale dated 6.5.2012 is fabricated to create an evidence that the appellant advanced an amount of Rs. 12,51,000/- so that he will be entitled to benefit u/s 54. (iii) Clause of page (2) of this agreement read as under: Whereas in pursuance of the aforesaid offer and acceptance, at the request of Vendor the purchaser had paid a sum of Rs. 12,51,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Fifty One Thousand Only) towards adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er thought of the appellant during the appeal proceedings. As per the return of income according to assessee the capital gain was only Rs. 7,94,534/- which was claimed as exempt. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of payment of advance of Rs. 12,51,000/- and also due to unexplained discrepancies mentioned above, the action of the AO in denying benefit u/s 54 is confirmed." 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the entire sale proceeds were utilised for the purchase of the residential house property in the name of his son. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-Tax-XII vs. Kamal Wahal reported in 351 ITR 4 wherein it is held that the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the assessee's son with respect to the terms of loan agreement entered with HDFC Bank towards the purchase of the residential house is of no relevance as far as the Income Tax Act is concerned for granting deduction U/s. 54 of the Act. Penal action against such violation if any has to be initiated by the Bank, as per the Banking Regulations Act or as per the terms of the agreement between them and not by the Revenue. Moreover, the case decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited supra has also held that "wherein the assessee purchases new house in the name of his wife and not in the name of any stranger who was unconnected with him, exemption cannot be denied if entire investment had come out of proceeds of old property". From th....