2014 (4) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai dated 17.08.2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,43,449/- made by the A.O. u/s.68 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore the A.O. The ld. CIT(A) though was convinced with the explanation of the assessee, was of the opinion that the claim should have been made through a revised return of income. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not claimed the extra exemption in the original return and no revise return has been filed. Therefore, no benefit can be given to the assessee and uphold the addition of Rs.1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that there is no dispute insofar as the facts are concerned. As per the details of shares and mutual funds the LTCG on sale of shares comes to Rs.47,71,191/-. It is also an undisputed fact that the same has been claimed as exempt at Rs.46,27,742/-. It is also an undisputed fact that the claim has been denied only on the ground that it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X