9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporting the claim of the assessee and, therefore, added Rs. 2.11 crores to the income of the assessee. 3. In the first appellate proceedings, assessee produced a letter of allotment of Plot No. E-1403 admeasuring 738 sft. at Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 1,82,45,042/- and submitted that along with stamp duty, registration charges and GST it comes to Rs. 2.11 crores, which she claimed as deduction. Learned CIT(A) however, noticed that out of this purchase amount, the assessee paid only Rs. 11 lakhs and, therefore, assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 54 of the Act only to the extent of Rs. 11 lakhs and accordingly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 2 crores. 4. Assessee is aggrieved by such an action of the learned CIT(A), assessee preferred this appeal stating that there is no justification for the learned CIT(A) to sustain the addition inasmuch as the assessee gets title to the property on the issuance of the allotment letter and the payment of instalments is only a follow up action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality. Placing reliance on the CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15/10/1986, and Circular No. 672, dated 16/12/1993, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxman.com 2 (Bombay) and Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) in support of his contention that the assessee has to strictly comply with the conditions of section 54 of the Act to claim the deduction therein because strict interpretation is to be adopted whilst construing an exemption provision. 7. Insofar as the additional ground is concerned, it is the argument of the learned DR that under section 124(3) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer where he made a return under sub section (1) of section 139 of the Act after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice under sub section (1) of section 142 of the Act and, therefore, inasmuch as the assessee never questioned the jurisdiction of the learned Assessing Officer till filing of the additional ground on 24/12/2021, the assessee is precluded from raising such an issue at this stage. Second submissions of the learned DR is that the assessee was a salaried employee and has habitually been filing the returns with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3) of Hyderabad and as usual for this ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment, whichever is earlier. 10. Now coming to the decisions relied upon by the assessee, insofar as the decision in Kiran Singh (supra) is concerned, it was a suit for ejection of the defendants, where the suit was originally valued at Rs. 2,950/-. Suit was tried by the subordinate judge and the first appeal was heard and dismissed by the District Judge. When the matter went to the Hon'ble High Court, objection was taken by the stamp reporter as to the valuation of the suit and it was decided by the Hon'ble High Court, the correct valuation was Rs. 9,980/- on which the plaintiff paid the court fee and a plea was taken whether the valuation was Rs. 2,950/- as valued in the plaint or Rs. 9,980/- as determined by the Hon'ble High Court, the original jurisdiction to try the suit was with the subordinate judge. However, such a valuation made a difference in respect of the first appellate court - whether District Court according to the valuation in the plaint, or High Court as per the valuation determined by the Hon'ble High Court. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the appeal to the District Court was competent and that its decision could be reversed onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e policy that no questions relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Assessing Officer in a matter where the return under section 139(1) of the Act, shall be entertained after expiry of one month from the date on which the notice under section 142(1) of the Act was served. 13. Case of Manavy Brother (supra) relates to the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer under section 147/148 of the Act in relation to the conditions precedent for such exercise. It has nothing to do with pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. Observations of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to the effect that lack of satisfaction of jurisdictional fact can never confer a jurisdiction and an objection to it can be raised at any time even in appeal proceedings, is not helpful to the assessee. Reliance on this decision is misconceived because the principles relating to lack of inherent jurisdiction cannot be extended to the exercise of pecuniary territorial jurisdiction. 14. Sant Baba Mohan Singh (supra), is a case that relates to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 31(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, where the assessee con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A), only an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs was paid to the builder. Learned CIT(A), therefore, granted relief to the assessee in respect of Rs. 11 lakhs that was paid and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 2 crores. Assessee does not plead that she paid anything more than Rs. 11 lakhs to Prime Terra Build Tech. Assessee places reliance on Circular No. 471 and 672 (supra). Relevant portion of Circular No. 471 reads that: "2. The Board had occasion to examine as to whether the acquisition of a fiat by an, allottee under the Self-Financing Scheme (SFS) of the D.D,A. amounts to purchase or is construction by the D.D.A. on behalf of the allottee. Under the SFS of the D.D.A., the allotment letter is issued on payment of the first instalment of the cost of construction. The allotment is final unless it is cancelled or the allottee withdraws from the scheme. The allotment is cancelled only under exceptional circumstances. The allottee gets title to the property on the issuance of the allotment letter and the payment of instalments is only a follow-up action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality. If there is a failure on the part of the D.D.A. to deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
