9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 792 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 54F against the long term capital gain - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - Insofar as the assessee s claim for deduction under section 54F is concerned, the same has been found to be admissible by the Assessing Officer in the order giving effect to the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As regards the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative, we do not find any merit, firstly, because, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to admit the additional ground and allow the claim for deduction if it is permissible in accordance with law and secondly, The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has merely directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and allow the claim in accordance with the law which, in turn, has been found to be admissible. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly we do not find any merits in the ground raised by the Revenue and, therefore, the same is dismissed. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to deduction u/s 54F against long term capital gain without initial claim. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the quantum of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The main issue raised was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in allowing the deduction under section 54F against the long term capital gain during the appellate proceedings, even though the deduction was not claimed initially before the Assessing Officer. The case involved the sale of immovable property by an individual for a total consideration of Rs. 10 crores, with the Assessing Officer determining the long term capital gain at Rs. 36,61,88,692. The valuation of the property was referred to the DVO, who provided different valuations for the property as on specific dates. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the DVO's valuation, leading to a revised long term capital gain calculation. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee raised an additional ground for claiming deduction under section 54F, as part of the capital gain was invested in a new property. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this ground and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and allow the deduction under section 54F. The Revenue challenged this specific claim in the appeal, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the deduction instead of remanding it to the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to admit additional grounds and allow deductions if permissible by law. The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow the deduction under section 54F, as verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the allowance of the deduction under section 54F. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow the deduction under section 54F against the long term capital gain, even though it was not initially claimed before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the admissibility of the deduction under section 54F as verified and allowed by the Assessing Officer.
|
