9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had failed to furnish the required sale deed in support of investment made qualifying the deduction u/s 54 of Act – CIT(A) observed that no comments were offered by the AO on the merits of the evidence - the remand report says that the claim was allowable as per Income-tax Act, 1961 - The CIT (A) granted the relief by admitting the additional evidence – as the remand report says that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.55,96,020/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of immovable property sold at Mumbai for Rs.65,00,000/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. The case was taken up for scrutiny on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts with regard to the allowability of exemption u/s 54 in respect of the investment of Rs.52,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer submitted a remand report on 28.03.2013 where it was pleaded that the additional evidence should not be admitted as adequate opportunities were provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The application u/s 154 was rejected on the ground that the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and showed that advance of Rs.11,87,500/- was paid towards the plot at Bhandup. Mumbai. The said M.O.V. Deed not pertained to the assessee and was not a registered sale deed and hence the same was not considered. Thus, it could be observed from the assessment proceedings that assessee had failed to furnish the required sale deed in support of investment made qualifying the deduction u/s 54 of I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
