Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Yamunanagar

ITA 766/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8525 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 80C; 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 766/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, VS. THE ITO, WARD-3, PROP. GUPTA CONST. CO., YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AAZPG7515H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA (ASSESSEE) RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.02.2016 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANCHKULA DATED 02.07.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER ERRED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTY WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT TIME TO ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER ERRED TO REJECT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF ASSESSEE U/S 145(3) WITHOUT GIVING FRESH OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE. THE ACCOUNT BOOKS LYING WI TH THE ASSESSEE AND HE REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE SAME. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE ALWAYS CO-OPERATE WITH DEPARTMEN T DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECI SION GIVEN BY THE HONOURABLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IIV/S EARTHTECH ENGINEERS DECIDED ON MARCH 13-03-14. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ACCEPT THE 8% RATE ON NET PAYMEN T AFTER DEDUCTING MATERIAL SUPPLY BY DEPARTMENT FROM GROSS PAYMENT OF ASSESSEE. THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE SAME AS THE A SSESSEE'S FIRM. 5. THE INTEREST U/S 24 CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE PAID T O BANK OF HOUSE LOAN RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF H OUSE AMOUNTING RS, 93865/-FOR THE YEAR IN CONSIDERATION AND 1/5 THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15412/- OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO B ANK ON PREVIOUS LOAN OF HOUSE LOAN OF INTEREST PAID TO BAN K I.E. RS. 93865 + RS. 15412 = RS. 1.10277 HAS WRONGLY DISALLO WED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AS WELL AS C.I.T. APPEAL. 6. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & CIT(A) WRONGLY DISAL LOWED THE CLAIM U/S 80-C OF HOME LOAN REPAYMENT MADE BY ASSES SEE TO BANK ON HOUSE LOAN RAISE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTR UCTION OF HOUSE. 7. THE FIRST TIME APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS F IXED ON DT. 07-05-14 AND C.I.T. APPEAL SEEK REMAND REPORT FROM THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AFTER THE QUERY MADE BY LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER REGARDING THE HOME LOAN. THE HOME LOAN RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND COMPLETE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOAN WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FACTS CLEAR IN REPLY DT. 31-05-14 & 05-6- 14 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. 8. THE ASSESSEE MADE THESE FACTS CLEAR IN HIS REP LY DT. 18- 05-15 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) QUERY DT. 15-05-15 IN RESPONSE TO REMAND REPORT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE C.I.T. APPEAL OFFICE. 9. THE ASSESSEE PRAY THAT RELIEF MAY BE KINDLY AL LOW TO ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY HONOURA BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSI ONER OF 3 INCOME TAX II VS. EARTHTECH ENGINEERS OF DT. 13-03- 2013. 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, SHRI RAMES H KUMAR GUPTA, (ASSESSEE) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S 144 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI MANJIT S INGH, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH VOUCHERS AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS VIZ (I) PROOF OF LABOUR PAYMENT, (II) DET AILS OF CLOSING STOCK, (III) DATE OF BILL SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTEE INCLUDING DATE OF LAST BILL, (IV) MUSTER ROLLS SHOWING ATTENDANCE OF LABOUR & (V) PROOF OF O WNERSHIP OF HOUSE INCLUDING THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND TOTAL IN VESTMENT MADE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE. THE REAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 13.12.2 011 ALONGWITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON 20.12.2011. HOWEVER, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.12.2011. SHRI MANJIT SINGH, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO COM PLY WITH THE NOTICE AND FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUME NTS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHRI MANJIT SINGH, LD. DR POINT ED OUT THAT THE LAST REPLY WAS SUBMITTED AT DAK WITH MISLEADING SUBMISSIONS THAT T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHRI MANJIT SINGH, LD. DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS REMAND REPORT HAD STATED THAT ON THE LETTER RECEIVED AT DAK COUNTER, THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REMARKED, NEVER PRODUCED. ACCORDING TO LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE, THEREFOR E, SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO MATERIAL 4 ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR. THUS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND HENCE TH E SAME IS REJECTED. 4. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. DURING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED PAYMENT AT RS. 1,54,02,69 3/-. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED MATERIALS PURCHASED A T RS. 24,01,350/-, WAGES PAID AT RS. 56,66,687/- TO THE LABOURERS AND LABOUR CESS AT RS. 1,06,162/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES IN SPITE OF THE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED PROFIT AT RS. 6,77,357/-, INCLUDING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 3,974/- ON THE FDRS. IN THIS CASE THE ASSES SING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% BY P LACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT HISSAR VS PARBHAT KUMAR (2012) 323 ITR 675 (P&H). THE NET PR OFIT RATE OF 12% WAS APPLIED ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,54,02,693/-. TH US, THE PROFIT FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 18,48,323/-. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISIONS O F THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT HISSAR VS. P ARBHAT KUMAR (SUPRA) AND RAJA RAM CONTRACTOR VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 689 OF 2009 DATED 7.4.2010, HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN A PPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REDUC ED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 53,53,510/- ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE. THUS, THE GROSS RECEIPTS CAME TO RS. 1,00,49,183/- (RS. 1,54,02,693/- MINUS RS. 53,53,51 0/-). IN THAT VIEW OF THE 5 MATTER, THE LD. CIT(A) COMPUTED THE PROFIT FROM CON TRACT BUSINESS AT RS. 12,05,902/-.. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARBHAT KUMAR (SUPRA) . IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN THE CIVIL CONS TRUCTION WORK. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM FOR WAGES FOUND TO BE UN VERIFIABLE. WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE CIT(A), HE MADE FURTHER ADD ITIONS. IN SECOND APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMIN E OF NET PROFIT BY APPLYING A RATE OF 12% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS EXCLUDING THE COST OF MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY DEPARTMENT. THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT; AND THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, HELD AS UNDER:-\ THE TRIBUNAL HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THERE MAY BE UNVERIFIABLE WAGES WHICH MAY CALL FOR ADDITION TO I NCOME, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS). APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGM ENT ASSESSMENT IN A GIVEN SITUATION WILL BE A QUESTION OF FACT UNLESS S UCH AN ASSESSMENT IS SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY OR PERVERSE. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. ASSESS MENT OF 12 PER CENT. OF NET PROFIT RATE OF CONTRACT RECEIPT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY OR PERVERSE. 5. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSID ERATION. 6. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6 7. IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS CA TEGORICALLY HELD THAT ISSUE OF 12% OF NET PROFIT RATE ON CONTRACT RECEIPT CANNOT BE HELD ARBITRARY. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ALLOW ED A RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF R S. 53,53,510/-. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 53,53,510/- FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARBHAT KUMAR (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND IN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF C IT(A). IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EARTH TECH ENGINEERS LAWS (P&H)-2014-3-224 DECIDED ON 13.3.2014. IN OUR VIEW, THE SAID DECISIO N IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CAS E WAS LAYING OPTICAL FIBER CABLES ETC. IN THE REMOTE AREA OF JAMMU & KASHMIR. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE NET PROFIT RATE TO 8% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST 12% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVING THAT THE PROFIT OF A CONTRACTOR WOULD NECESSARILY DEPENDS UPON VARIOUS FACTORS LIKE PLACE OF EXECUTION OF CON TRACT, ACCESSIBILITY OF LABOUR, RAW MATERIAL ETC. AND WOULD, THEREFORE, VARY FROM C ONTRACTOR TO CONTRACTOR. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE IN THAT CASE WAS ADMITTEDLY LAYING OPTICAL FIBER CABLE IN A REMOTE B ORDER AREA OF JAMMU & KASHMIR. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFEREN T FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASONS AS TO WHY THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE AN D UNREASONABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EXPLANATION, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERI T IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E, WE DISMISS GROUND NOS.2 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL. 7 8. GROUND NOS. 5 TO 9 OF THE APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES OF DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,10,277/- AND U/S 80C AMOUNTING T O RS. 68,135/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE LOAN INTEREST AND REPAYMENTS RESPECTIVELY. THE FACTS RELATING TO THESE ISSUES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LOSSES OF CURRENT YEAR AT RS. 1,10,277/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN. FURTHE R, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80C AT RS. 68,135/-. AS PER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO SUBM IT ANY CERTIFICATE OF REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJEC TED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). DURING THE COUR SE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REJOINDER TO TH E REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REJOINDER AS WELL AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) IS AVAILABLE NOT FOR P LOT OF LAND BUT FOR THE CONSTRUCTED HOUSE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THERE FORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTIO N U/S 24 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN. AS REGARDS DEDUCT ION U/S 80IC, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE OWNE RSHIP OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. IT WOULD BE WO RTHWHILE TO REPRODUCE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES, WHICH RE AD AS UNDER:- 8 7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WRI TTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, REPORT OF THE AO . REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1,10,277/- U/S 24 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN ON FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE WAS COMPL ETE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO IN ITS REMAN D REPORT HAVE GIVEN DETAILED FINDING ON THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSI TS IN THE HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAI NED. THOUGH THERE IS THE HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF AP PELLANT ALONGWITH HIS WIFE AND SON AND THE BANK HAS CONFIRM ED THAT A SUM OF RS.94,865/- TOWARDS INTEREST AND RS.68,135/-TOWA RDS PRINCIPAL WAS REPAID IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT, BUT THE APPELLANT H AS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF THE HOUSE. EVEN IN THE REJOINDER THE APPELLANT H AS SUBMITTED ON REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN ON THE PLOT NO. 233/231 A T SAROJINI COLONY. YAMUNA NAGAR, BUT HE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY E VIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF COMPLETION OF HOUSE ON THE PLOT. THE PRO VISION OF THE SECTION 24(B) DEALING WITH INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PR OPERTY STIPULATES THAT DEDUCTION OF INTEREST PAYABLE ON SU CH BORROWED CAPITAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH HA S BEEN ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED WITH BORROWED CAPITAL. IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE TH E DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE HOUSING LOAN CAN BE AVAILED EVEN FOR LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWE VER, THE DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE NOT FOR PLOT OF LAND BUT FOR CONSTRUCTED HOUSE. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED EVIDEN CE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE DEDUCTION U/S 24 ON ACCO UNT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN IS NOT ALLOWED .THIS GROUND NO. 8 I S DISMISSED. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 80C OF RS. 68, 135/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN REPAYMENT AS NO EVIDENCE WA S FILED BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING T HE AO HAS ENQUIRED FROM THE HANK AND THE BANK HAS CONFIRMED T HAT AN 9 AMOUNT OF RS.68.135/-WAS PAID TOWARDS PRINCIPAL OF HOUSING LOAN. HOUSING LOAN IS NAME OF THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH OTH ER JOINT HOLDERS AND APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH REPAY MENT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY OTHER JOINT HOLDERS. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION, I FIND THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C I S AVAILABLE ON ANY INSTALMENT OR PART PAYMENT TOWARDS COST OF PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO A HOUSING BOARD OR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY OR REPAYMENT OF HOUSIN G LOAN TAKEN FROM BANK. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELL ANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY. SO, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN OF RS.68,135/- IS NOT ALLOWED. THUS, THE GROUN D NO. 9 IS DISMISSED. 10. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE FOR CLAIM ING THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND EVEN AT TH IS STAGE ALSO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE NOT FOR PLOT OF LAND BUT FOR CONSTRUCTED HOUSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE T HAT THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE DEDUCTIO N CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 11. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80C O F THE ACT OF RS. 68,135/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN REPAYMENT, WE FIND THAT DUR ING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ENQUIRED FROM THE BANK A ND THE BANK HAD CONFIRMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 68,135/- WAS PAID TOWARDS PRI NCIPAL AMOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A LSO OBSERVED THAT HOUSING LOAN WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ALONG WITH O THER JOINT HOLDERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SUCH REPAYMENTS HAD NOT B EEN CLAIMED BY OTHER JOINT HOLDERS. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE 10 ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP O F A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT IS APPARENT FORM THE RECORDS THAT HOUSING LOAN WAS SAN CTIONED BY THE BANK IN THE NAME OF RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA (ASSESSEE), VIJAY GUPTA AND RAHUL GUPTA AND THE HOUSING LOAN IS ALSO IN THE JOINT NAME OF THESE PER SONS. DURING THE COURSE OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNI SH THE SOURCE OF REPAYMENTS OF HOUSING LOAN AMOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD MADE REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN FROM HIS OWN POCKET, HOWEVER, NO SPECIFIC SOURCE OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN W AS FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER LOAN SANCTIONED LETTER DAT ED 23.8.2006, THE BANK HAD SANCTIONED LOAN IN THE NAMES OF ABOVE THREE PERSONS . THEREFORE, THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING REPAYMENT OF LOAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE BANK IN THE NAMES OF THREE PERSONS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E. NO CLARIFICATION IN THIS REGARD WAS PROVIDED BY THE BANK. ALL THE ABOVE THRE E PERSONS ARE SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THEY ARE MAINTAINING THE BA NK ACCOUNTS WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GOBINDPURI, YAMUNANAGAR JOINTLY. IN OUR OPINION, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THE BANK AND THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD NOT BE CLEAR WH O HAD DEPOSITED AND MADE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE NO H ESITATION IN REJECTING THE GROUND REGARDING CLAIM U/S 80C OF THE ACT. WE MAY ALSO ADD HERE THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR CLAIMIN G THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT GROUND NOS. 5 TO 9 OF THE APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.02.2016 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 RKK 11 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR