9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 636 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT). The CIT(A) has to consider additional grounds and deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Nand Kishore Yadav (2015 (1) TMI 288 - ITAT HYDERABAD), who is the brother and partner of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 351/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotalah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, JJ. For Appellant by : Sri K.C. Devdas For Respondent by Sri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 23.01.2014. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 on 24.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee viz., Sri Nand Kishore Yadav which was confirmed by the CIT(A) but on further appeal, the Tribunal held that deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is to be allowed. Therefore, it was argued before the CIT(A) that since the issue has been decided in favour of one of the partners, the deduction u/s. 54F should also be allowed in the case of assessee herein. 5. Before the CIT(A) the AR also raised additional grounds as under: i) The AO failed to note that the development agreement cum GP for development of property belonging to the appellant and other three brothers having been executed on 23.12.1998 the transfer, if any took place on 23.12.1998 and not on 19.07.2002 when the constructed flats were handed over and, therefore, the AO erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds and the finding that the claim u/s. 54F was allowed by ITAT was not correct. 8. We have heard both the parties. We find that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in his conclusion at para 2.1 as under: During the appellate proceedings the AR of the appellant has not pressed these grounds of appeal because the deduction u/s. 54F is allowed by the Tribunal. Hence, dismissed. 9. The CIT(A) has got the cases mixed up between the brother and the assessee herein and has wrongly concluded that the AR has not pressed these grounds of appeal. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is free to raise any issue including the application of judgement of jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
