9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept under the mandate of law. Accordingly, the rejection of claim without examination is not permissible in law. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd.[ 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ] has reiterated the power of ITAT to consider a claim which was made otherwise then by revised return. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the AO. AO shall e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment in new residential house U/s 54 of the income Tax Act 1 96 1 from the Long term capital gain earned during the year without appreciating the fact that all the relevant details were submitted on record during the appellate proceedings as proof for the deduction available to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Case and under the provisions of Law, The Learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act 1961 not allowed by the First Appellate Authority is not based on any facts or law and kindly be allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a small carpenter. In the assessment proceedings addition was made for long term capital gain for sale of flat. Assessee s claim for deduction u/s 54F was denied on the ground that the claim was not made originally. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larified or submitted as to whether he had purchased any other flat within one year before or two years after the date of transfer. In other words, complete details were not submitted to prove that all the conditions of deduction u/s 54 have been fulfilled by the assessee. In view of above, claim of appellant for deduction u/s 54 is not entertained. 4. After this order assessee is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
