9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal Representative to prove that assessee s residential status or his ward is different in the above stated return or in Section 148 notice or in reassessment. He could not point out such difference. It has further come on record that assessee had also received acknowledgement of his return from department s end forming part of the paper book. We quote hon ble jurisdictional high court in Manish Kumar Pravinbhai Kiri vs. ACIT [ 2016 (1) TMI 787 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] holding that the only reason of non filing of return forming basis of the impugned reopening in such circumstances stands belied. We thus accept assessee s challenge to validity of the reopening and conclude that the Assessing Officer s above stated reasoning goes contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verlooked the submissions of your appellant while dismissing this ground of your appellant. 2.00 On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant's case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act on erroneous plea that your appellant has not purchased residential house within 2 years from the date of transaction. 2.01 Your appellant submits that ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that your appellant had given more than 80% of total estimated development cost of residential house within two years from the date of sale of land. However, due to various unavoidable circumstances, the development of the residential flat was not completed by the Contractor within the stipulated time. You ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 4. We have heard both the sides. Case file perused. It is not is dispute that the Assessing Officer s main ground as extracted hereinabove is that the assessee had not filed his return for the impugned assessment year. The same turns to be contrary to page (s) 16 to 18 of the paper book wherein the assessee s return in question is stated to have been filed on 19.12.2011 declaring total income as ₹ 27,02,520/- including long term capital gains of ₹ 35,35,765/- on sale of the impugned immovable property in question. The Assessing Officer s order dated 09.02.2015 disposing of assessee s objection to reopening reads that the said return had not been filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) on the other hand is of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
