9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.5840/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2020 - Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri V. Vinodkumar ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.5840/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-34/ITO-23(3)(2)/IT-404/2016-17 dated 19/07/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/12/2016 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in accepting and allowing the claim u/s 54 at the appellate stage under Rule 46A, even when the assessee had made no claim u/s 54 in the ITR ad computation on income filed for the relevant Assessment Year ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information was received from Sub-Registrar Office vide letter dated 27/12/2016 wherein it was confirmed that the assessee registered his agreement with Sub-Registrar office vide three documents. Accordingly, the ld. AO observed that from the evidence furnished by the Sub-Registrar office, the assessee had sold an immovable property being residential flat during the year for ₹ 35 lakhs and had not offered any capital gains thereon. Thereafter, the assessee furnished the capital gains working on 27/12/2016 before the ld. AO, computing the capital gains at ₹ 5,53,574/- and also submitted that such long term capital gain was re-invested in purchase of new residential house at Crown Palace, Bandra. We find that the ld. AO disregarded this capital gain working filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and observed that in view of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 and observed that since claim of capital gains and subsequent re-investment thereon was not made by the assessee in the return of income, the same is to be rejected. Accordingly, the ld. AO sought to treat the sale considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in Crown Palance, Bandra, Mumbai. 3.3. With regard to addition made towards unexplained investment in another property being 50% joint ownership share in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 3,01,50,000, is concerned, the assessee narrated the entire facts of the said addition as under:- a) The assessee jointly alongwith his wife had purchased flat No.502, admeasuring 970 sq.ft, 30th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai on 26/11/2007 for a consideration of ₹ 105,05,000/- from Grace Property Developers. The said property was sold by the assessee for ₹ 6,03,00,000/- alongwith his wife jointly. The sale proceeds of the property was re-invested in a property situated at Crown Palace, 23rd Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 005 for ₹ 6,03,00,000 jointly with his wife. The assessee filed the details of investments made in Crown Palace together with its respective concerns in the form of additional evidences and requested the ld. CIT(A) to admit the same in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee also gave computation of capital gains in respect of the property situated at Flat No.502, 30th Road, Bandra together with the claim of exemption u/s.54 of the Act for re-inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. CIT(A). Since, the long term capital given had been re-invested, the ld. CIT(A) held that assessee would be eligible for claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act. 3.8. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the ld. AO in the remand report had not objected or had not given any adverse remark regarding the additional evidences filed by the assessee with regard to reinvestment in single house property at Crown Palace, Bandra West, Mumbai. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the ld. AO in the remand report had merely stated that the claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act would be available only in respect of one property and not for two properties. 3.9. The ld. CIT(A) however observed that the details filed by the assessee in the form of additional evidences require to be admitted and since no adverse remarks were given by the ld. AO regarding those evidences on merits of the case, proceeded to examine the same on his own and held that assessee s share of long term capital gains on sale of Flat No.501, Anni ville building in 30th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai worked out to ₹ 1,27,73,349/- and that since the entire long term capital gain had been duly re-invested in purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
