9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Biren Shah, AR For the Revenue : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.DR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara dated 29.09.2016 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) for the Asst. Year 2013- 14. 2. This is a recalled matter. Initially, the Tribunal had dismissed the above appeal of the assessee for default vide order dated 18.9.2018. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a Misc. Application No. 29/Ahd/2021 seeking recall of this order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain from sale of property were liable to tax in the preceding year i.e. Asst. Year 2012-13, and alternatively, he also held, that if capital gain is found taxable in the impugned year, then the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 54 of the Act. 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the finding of the AO that the capital gain is liable to tax in the preceding assessment year, and also the alternate denial of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has raised the following grounds before us: 1. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, learned Assessing officer had erred in concluding that the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e years from the said date of transfer, I.e. 27-02-2012, adopted by him. 5. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, Hon. CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the property sold by the appellant is a plot of land and it does not consist of a residential building and thereby rejecting the claim of the appellant for exemption u/s. 54, without stating any basis for reaching such a conclusion. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above, in law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, Hon. CIT(Appeals) has also erred in not appreciating that even if the appellant had transferred a plot of land, he would have been eligible for exemption u/s. 54F in respect of amount invested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
