Mrs. Priya Mahajan, New Delhi V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1221/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90202 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 1221/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MRS. PRIYA MAHAJAN, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), NEW DELHI CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AFLPM8372D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MOHIT DHIMAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.06.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A),CHANDIGARH DATED 22.08.2012 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE 75% OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 24(B) WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLELY RE-PAID THE ENTIRE INTEREST AN D PRINCIPAL SINCE THE DATE OF BORROWING. 2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MISINTERPRETING THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AS TH E INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE SEPARATE FUND BELONG ING TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPLY THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT V C.K. MALIK (89 ITD 2 49 ALL.) TO THE PRESENT CASE BY NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U /S 24(B) IN THE PROPORTION OF INVESTMENT. 2 4 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ANY PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION / RELIEF / INCENTIVE HAS TO BE CONSTR UED LIBERALLY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO QUASH THE INITIATIO N OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1)(C) WITHOUT ANY COGENT REAS ON. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYED WITH HFCL INFOTEL LIMITED, MOHALI FROM 1.4.2007 TO 1.1.2008 AND WITH VERIZONE INDIA PVT LTD, NEW DELHI FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. UPTO 31.3. 2008. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.7.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,44,834/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED ON 18.1.2009 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,08,663/- AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS NOT CLAIMED. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER GUIDELINES OF THE CBDT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF T HE ACT ON 13.9.2009. THEREAFTER QUESTIONNAIRE ALONGWITH NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) / 142(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON INTEREST PAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,86,971/- U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT FO R THE PROPERTY 3557, SECTOR 69, MOHALI (PUNJAB). THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRE D THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE TITLE DEED / OWNERSHIP DETAIL OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY . IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUERY, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE REGIS TERED SALE DEED OF PLOT # 3557 SITUATED IN SECTOR 69, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI, DISTT. RO PAR. AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 12.1.2004 SHRI DARBARA SINGH S/O SHR KARNAIL SINGH RESIDENT OF 62, PHASE- 6, MOHALI, DISTRICT ROPAR SOLD THE ABOVE PLOT MEASU RING 500 SQUARE YARDS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 19 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF FOUR PER SONS NAMELY (I) SHRI HARBANS LAL ARORA - FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE) (II) SHR I VINOD ARORA HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE (III) SMT. PRIYA ARORA / PRIYA MAHAJAN A SSESSEE AND (IV) SHRI RAJIV ARORA BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE SALE DEED ARE REPRO DUCED HEREIN BELOW:- WHEREAS I AM THE OWNER IN POSSESSION OF PLOT NO. 3 557, SECTOR-69, AT URBAN ESTATE S.A.S. NAGAR (MOHALI), D ISTT. ROPAR, THE AREA OF WHICH IS 500 SQ. YDS. AND FROM C ONSTRUCTION POINT OF VIEW THIS PLOT IS VACANT. THE ABOVE PLOT I S FREE FROM ALL SORTS OF ENCUMBRANCE AND NO LITIGATION IS GOING ON ABOUT THE SAME. NOW I IN MY FULL SENSES OF MIND HAVE SOLD ABOVE SAID PLOT WITH ALL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS ALL OTHER RIGHTS, RI GHT TO WAY, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING RIGHT TO RE SIDENCE AND ENJOYMENT, RIGHT TO WATER, ELECTRICITY, AIR, LIGHT, INCLUDING ALL TYPE OF CONNECTION, INCLUDING ALL DEPOSITED SECURIT IES, INCLUDING ALL THOSE RIGHTS WHICH AT PRESENT ARE AVA ILABLE TO ME, TO (I) SH. HARBANS LAL ARORA SON OF SH. KARAM CHAND , (II) SH. VINOD ARORA SON OF SH. HARBANS LAL ARORA, (III) SMT . PRIYA ARORA WIFE OF SH. VINOD ARORA AND (IV) SH. RAJIV AR ORA SON OF SH. HARBANS LAL ARORA ALL RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO. 39 4, PHASE- 2, S.A.S. NAGAR (MOHALI), DISTT. ROPAR FOR A CONSID ERATION PRICE OF RS. 19,00,000/- (RUPEES NINETEEN LACS ONLY ) AND THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN GOT MADE OF THE PURCHASERS AT THE SPOT FROM TODAY AND ALL THE ORIGI NAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE PLOT HAVE ALSO BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASERS. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PRICE OF RS . 19,00,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED VIDE DRAFT NO. 007787 , DATED 8.1.2003 (ISSUED BY THE HONG KONG & SHINGAI BANK CORPORATION LTD., CHANDIGARH) BEFORE THE SUB-REGIST RAR. NOW NO OTHER AMOUNT REMAINS DUE TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASERS. NOW I OR MY HEIRS CEASE TO HAVE ANY CON CERN WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE SAID PLOT AND NEITHER SHAL L HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THE SAME IN FUTURE. ALL THE RIGHTS HAV E BEEN ACCRUED TO THE PURCHASERS, WHO MAY DO WHATEVER THEY LIKES AND I WILL HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SAME. THE WHOLE OF THE EXPENSES OF THE SALE DEED HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE PURCHASE RS. PERMISSION TO SELL THE PLOT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUDA, MOHALI VIDE LETTER NO. 27346, DATED 16.12.2003, AND THIS DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED WITH THE OFFICE COPY OF THE SALE DEED. THE PURCHASERS SHALL HAVE TO ABID E BY THE TERMS OF THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUDA, MOHALI. I AND MY OTHER PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE IN ALL SITUATIONS FOR ANY LEGAL DEFECT. THEREFORE THE SALE DEED OF THE PLOT HAS BEE N EXECUTED SO THAT PROOF MAY REMAINS. THE CONTENTS HAVE BEEN R EAD OVER AND AFTER HEARING AND CONSIDERING, THE SAME HAVE BE EN TREATED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT PLOT WAS PURC HASED AND OWNED BY FOUR PERSONS AND THE HOUSING LOAN HAD ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE SAME FOUR PERSONS FROM 4 THE BANK. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOAN OBTAINED FROM THE BANK AMOUNTING TO RS. 19 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SHRI DARBARA SINGH AS SALE CON SIDERATION OF THE PLOT. IN THE SALE DEED, THE SHARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT SPEC IFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE INDIVIDUAL SHARES WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED, THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION WAS THAT EVERYONE HAD EQUAL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DEDUCTION OF HOME LOAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN PROPORTION TO THE ASS ESSEES SHARE IN PROPERTY. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH T HE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS IN THE JOINT NAME BUT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT EXCEPT LOA N AMOUNT FOR THE PURCHASE / CONSTRUCTION TOWARDS THE SAME WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE SOLELY AND THE NAMES OF OTHER CO-OWNERS WERE INCLUDED JUST FOR OBTAINING LO AN ONLY AS HIS INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OF INCOME WAS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CRITE RIA OF LOANS SET BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FROM WHICH LOAN WAS GOT SANCT IONED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT NOT ONLY THE LOAN WAS IN THE NAME OF FOUR PERSONS BUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS CO-OWNED BY THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A LSO REFERRED TO SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 AND STATED THAT IF CONSIDERATION IS PAID OUT OF COMMON FUND, BELONGING TO A NUMBER OF PERSONS; THEY ARE ENTITLED TO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IDENTICAL TO THE INTEREST TO WHICH THE Y WERE RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED IN THE FUND. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD INVESTED FOR PURCHASE / CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPUGNE D HOUSE PROPERTY, BUT NO EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE HOUSING LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN JOINTLY BY ALL THE FOUR CO-OWNERS IN WHOSE NAMES HOUSE PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED. HE, THE REFORE, HELD THAT INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN IS TO BE DIVIDED AMONG FOUR CO-OW NERS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWE D ONLY 1/4 TH OF THE TOTAL INTEREST PAYMENT AND DISALLOWED RS. 5,15,228/- OUT OF RS. 6,86,971/-. 5 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) V IDE HIS ORDER DATED 22.8.2012 UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, OB SERVING AS UNDER:-- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. C OUNSEL. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: WHEREAS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED FOR CONSIDERATION TO TWO OR MORE PERSONS, AND SUCH CONSIDERATION IS PAID OUT OF A FUND BELONGING TO TH EM IN COMMON, THEY ARE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT TO THE CONTRARY, RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED TO INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY IDENTICAL, AS NEARLY AS MAY BE, WITH THE INTERESTS TO WHICH THEY WERE RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED IN THE FUND; AND, WHERE SUCH CONSIDERATION IS PAID OUT OF SEPARATE FUNDS BELONGING TO THEM RESPECTIVELY, ENTI TLED TO INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE S HARES OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ADVANC ED. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AS TO THE INTERESTS IN T HE FUND TO WHICH THEY WERE RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED, OR AS TO THE SHARES WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ADVANCED, SUCH PERSO NS SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE EQUALLY INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY. 2.3.1 THUS, IF CONSIDERATION IS PAID OUT OF A COMMON FUND , BELONGING TO A NUMBER OF PERSONS, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IDENTICAL TO THE INTEREST TO WHICH THEY WERE RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED IN THE FUND. THE AP PELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS INVESTED FOR PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPUGNED HOUSE PROPERT Y, BUT NO EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN PRODUCED. FURTHER, THE HOUSE LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN JOINTLY BY T HE ALL THE FOUR CO-OWNERS IN WHOSE NAMES THE HOUSE PROPERT Y WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED. HENCE, THE INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN IS TO BE DIVIDED AMONG THE FOUR CO-OWNERS AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PRO PERTY ACT. 2.3.2 IN THE CASE OF SH. C.K. MALIK (SUPRA), THE SHARES O F INDIVIDUAL CO-OWNERS WERE SPECIFIED AND SO THE RENT WAS DIVIDED AMONG THE CO-OWNERS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THUS, THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF SH. C.K. MALIK (SUPRA) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SHARES OF CO- OWNERS ARE NOT SPECIFIED AND SO THE HOUSE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE HOUSING LOAN IS TO BE TAKEN AS JOINTLY HELD BY 6 ALL THE CO-OWNERS AND INTEREST CLAIMED U/S24(B) IS ALSO TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED. THE ALLOWABLE INTEREST TO TH E APPELLANT U/S 24(B) WILL ACCORDINGLY BE 25% OF THE ENTIRE INTEREST AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REST RICTED IT TO 25%. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS U PHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE DISMISSED . 7. SHRI MOHIT DHIMAN, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MISINTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(B) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, AND DISALLOWED 75% OF THE TOTAL INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE PREMISE THAT EACH CO-OWNER IS ENTITLED FOR EQUAL DE DUCTION. SHRI MOHIT DHIMAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLELY INVESTED THE FUND S FOR PURCHASE / CONSTRUCTION OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AND HAD BEEN PAYING EMI O F THE HOUSING LOAN OUT OF HER INCOME WHICH WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. SH RI MOHIT DHIMAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME OF THE CO-OWNERS (ALL BEING MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY) WERE INCLUD ED IN THE SALE DEED FOR OBTAINING LOAN FROM THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AS HI S INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OF INCOME AT THAT TIME WAS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE LOAN SET OUT BY THE SAID FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. SHRI MOHIT DHIMAN LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT OTHER CO-OWNERS HAVE NEVER CLAIMED ANY DED UCTION UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF I. T. ACT IN ANY OF THE YEARS SINCE T HE TIME OF OBTAINING OF THE LOAN. SHRI MOHIT DHIMAN ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTI ON OF INTEREST ENVISAGED U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND SHOU LD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. 8. SHRI MANJIT SINGH LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND HEAV ILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF REVENUES CO NTENTION. 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DOUB T THAT SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF 7 THE PRESENT CASE ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED DEDUCTION ON INTEREST OF HOUSING LOAN OF RS. 6,86,971/- U/S 24(B)OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PLOT IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY FOUR PERSONS AND THE HOUSING LOAN WAS ALSO TAKEN BY SAME FOUR PERSONS. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE SALE DEED THE SHARE OF INDIVIDUAL IS NOT SPECIFIED. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTIO N 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND PROVIDES THAT WHERE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED FOR A CONSIDERATION TO TWO OR MORE PERSONS, SUCH CONSIDERATION IS PAID OUT OF FUNDS BELONGING TO THE M IN COMMON, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY IDENTICAL AS NEARLY AS MAY BE WITH THE INTEREST TO WHICH THEY WERE RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED I N THE FUND. IF SUCH CONSIDERATION IS PAID OUT OF THE SEPARATE FUNDS BEL ONGING TO THEM RESPECTIVELY, THEN SUCH PERSONS WILL BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST IN S UCH PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE SHARES OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH THEY RESPECTI VELY ADVANCED. THE LAST REQUIREMENT OF SECTION IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EV IDENCE AS TO THE INTEREST IN THE FUNDS TO WHICH THEY WERE RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED OR A S TO THE SHARES WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ADVANCED, SUCH PERSONS SHALL BE PRESUM ED TO BE EQUALLY INTERESTED FOR THE PROPERTY. IN THE CASE OF SAIYED ABDULLAH V. AHMAD AIR 1929 ALL. 817, THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFICATION OF THE SHARES PURCHASED BY TWO PERSONS IN THE SALE DEE D, IT MUST BE HELD THAT BOTH PURCHASED EQUAL SHARES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PLOT WAS PURCHASED BY FOUR PERSONS AND THEIR SHARES ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE S ALE DEED. EVEN THE HOUSING LOAN HAD ALSO BEEN TAKEN JOINTLY BY THE SAME FOUR P ERSONS, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUST IFIED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE INDIVIDUAL SHARES WERE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE SALE DE ED, THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT EVERYONE HAD EQUAL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. IT I S ALSO RELEVANT TO STATE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS INVESTED FOR PURCHASE / CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY, BUT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF T HIS STAND IS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I FULLY AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THA T THE ALLOWABLE INTEREST TO THE 8 ASSESSEE WILL BE 25% OF THE ENTIRE INTEREST AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.5 IS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.06.2015 SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 16 TH JUNE, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR