9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1397 - AT - Income TaxClaim the deduction u/s 54F OR u/s 54 - as per CIT(A) AO had wrongly held that assessee had claimed deduction u/sec. 54F - HELD THAT - We observe from the documents/materials filed on record that the assessee had never claimed deduction u/sec. 54F, but had rather claimed deduction u/sec. 54 as rightly held by the ld. CIT(A). The requisite details for claiming deduction u/sec. 54 had also been filed before the AO and accordingly, on examination of all those documents, the deduction was allowed by the ld. CIT(A). No infirmity with the findings of the CIT(A). We also observe that there were no additional evidences entertained by the CIT(A) on this issue and rather all those evidences had been filed even at the level of ld. AO. DR fairly conceded that it is a case of deduction claimed u/sec. 54 and not 54F - The findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld and the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues:
1. Admission of new evidences/documents without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer. 2. Violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Condoning the delay without reasonable cause. 4. Incorrect claim by the Assessing Officer regarding deduction u/s. 54F instead of u/s. 54. 5. Lack of documentary evidence for the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. Issue 1: Admission of new evidences/documents without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer The appeal raised concerns about the Ld. CIT(A) admitting new evidences/documents without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity. The Tribunal observed that the delay in the appeal was condoned due to circumstances beyond control and not deliberate. The case was heard on merits after considering the materials available on record and the submissions of the ld.DR. Issue 2: Violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 The appeal contended that the Ld. CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the Tribunal did not find any violation of Rule 46A in the detailed examination of the case. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Issue 3: Condoning the delay without reasonable cause The delay in the appeal was found to be due to circumstances beyond control and not intentional. The Tribunal, having condoned the delay, proceeded to hear the matter on merits after considering the submissions of the ld.DR. Issue 4: Incorrect claim by the Assessing Officer regarding deduction u/s. 54F instead of u/s. 54 The Assessing Officer incorrectly held that the assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 54F, whereas the correct claim was u/s. 54. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed that the assessee had claimed the deduction u/s. 54, not u/s. 54F, and provided all necessary documents to support this claim. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in this matter. Issue 5: Lack of documentary evidence for the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee The Assessing Officer disallowed the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee due to lack of justification and supporting documentation. However, the Ld. CIT(A) examined all documents and evidence submitted by the assessee and found that the conditions for claiming the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act were satisfied. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the correct deduction claimed by the assessee and the satisfaction of conditions for claiming the deduction u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
