Sadruddin Siddqui, Ambedkar Nagar V. Income Tax Officer-III, Faizabad

ITA 257/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 25723714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILENDRA MISHRA
• Keywords: Surrender of tenancy right
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.257/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 09 SADRUDDIN SIDDIQUI, RAGARGANJ, AKBARPUR, AMBEDKAR NAGAR 224122 PAN:AKXPS2699L VS. ITO III, FAIZABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SHAILENDRA MISHRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI RANJAN SRIVASTAVA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/10/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT (A) I, LUCKNOW DATED 09.01.2014 FOR A.Y. 2008 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS BUT HAS ONL Y ONE GRIEVANCE THAT THE PENALTY OF RS. 271,905/- IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/ S 271 (1) (C) OF I T ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME C ONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT (A). LEARNED DR OF THE R EVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN QUANTUM IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 8 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSE RVED IN PARA 7 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH T HAT HE HAS UTILISED ANY 2 AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO EXAMINED T HE BANK STATEMENT AND OBSERVED IN SAME PARA THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS WITHD RAWALS BUT NONE OF THE WITHDRAWALS RELATE TO THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL OR PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. AS PER THESE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, IT COMES OUT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS A TOTALLY UNFOUNDED CLAIM. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT (A) IN PARA 3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT FIRSTLY, THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS E XEMPT BUT THIS CLAIM IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WE FIND THAT THIS CLAIM WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT I T IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D. P. SANDHU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) LTD., 193 CTR 578 (SC), THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS E XEMPT. BUT IN THIS JUDGMENT ITSELF, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THIS IS THE P OSITION PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN SECTION 55 (2) IN 1995. HENCE, IN THE YEAR 2008 09 IF A PERSON RELIES ON THIS JUDGMENT AND CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS EXEMPT, SUCH CLAIM IS NOT ONLY DEVOID OF MERIT BUT SUCH CLAIM IS IN THE NATURE OF A TOTALLY UNFOUNDED CLAIM. UNDER THES E FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODI A ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:29/10/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR