9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1436 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to deduction U/s 54 - CIT(A) allowed claim - Whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? - Held that - The ld CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity to the Assessing Officer as no details were submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Before us also no evidence has been placed. The assessee s return is belated. The Assessing Officer is not supposed to entertain the deduction U/s 54F by relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court wherein held that the Assessing Officer cannot allow deduction claimed during the course of assessment proceedings, it can be claimed only in revised return filed before him. The assessee s return was belated, which cannot be revised under the law. Therefore, the revenue s appeal is set aside to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard and consider the above observation made by this Bench. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes only.
Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal condonation 2. Deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Investment in house property not in the name of assessee 4. Allowability of deduction under Section 54 for investment in multiple flats Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal condonation The appeal filed by the revenue was against the order of the learned C.I.T.(A)-1, Jaipur for A.Y. 2009-10, challenging the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The assessee, claiming to be illiterate, cited family disturbances and lack of knowledge about IT law as reasons for the delay. The ld CIT(A) relied on a Supreme Court decision to condone the delay, dismissing the revenue's challenge due to the circumstances presented by the assessee. Issue 2: Deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The revenue's grounds 2 to 4 were interlinked concerning a deduction under Section 54 on capital gains. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not disclosed capital gains from the sale of property in the original return. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54 for investing in six flats in the name of his wife. The ld CIT(A) allowed the deduction, emphasizing that the investment was made in another residential house, even though in the name of the wife. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that no evidence was provided for the investment and that the ld CIT(A) did not consider all aspects before allowing the deduction. Issue 3: Investment in house property not in the name of assessee The ld CIT(A) held that the investment in the residential house was made in the name of the assessee's wife, leading to the disallowance of the deduction by the Assessing Officer. However, the ld CIT(A) found that the investment was made from the sale proceeds of the old house, and legal precedents supported the allowance of the deduction, even when the property was purchased in the spouse's name. Issue 4: Allowability of deduction under Section 54 for investment in multiple flats The revenue contended that the investment in multiple flats did not meet the requirements of Section 54, emphasizing the need for investment in a single residential house. Legal arguments were presented citing various High Court decisions, but the ld CIT(A) allowed the deduction, noting that the investment was made in residential property and specified bonds, even if not solely in the name of the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the revenue's appeal for the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the case considering the observations made, emphasizing the need for proper evidence and adherence to legal procedures in claiming deductions under the Income Tax Act.
|
