9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count and all the aspects of the said issue was considered at that threshold which was thereafter contested by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has also passed order dated 03.08.2015 which remain uncontested. Reopening is on the very same issue and, therefore, this is a clear case of change of opinion which cannot be allowed as per ratio laid down in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [ 2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Vineet Moondra, AR For the Revenue : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction under Section 54 of the Act for investment in new residential house made by Mr. Mandar Kulkarni being member of HUF in his personal capacity and ought not to have confirmed the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 28,76,181/- under Section 54 of the Act made in assessment order dated 23.12.2016 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 by Assessing Officer II. 3. The assessee filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 2011- 12 on 18.07.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 2,657/-. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 25.02.2014 determining the assessed income at Rs. 10,67,818/- disallowing the assessee s claim of exemption under Section 54 of the Act on the issue of non-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions dated 09.04.2016 requesting therein to treat its original return of income filed on 18.07.2011 to be considered as return of income filed against notice under Section 148 of the Act. The copy of reasons record for reopening the case was supplied to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed its objection to the reopening as well as with regard to the jurisdiction over its case. The Assessing Officer disposed of the objections. The assessee also filed its response on merit and after considering the same, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 54 of the Act as claimed by the the assessee in respect of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs. 18,11,020/- 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing officer has rightly invoked Section 147 of the Act as the HUF has not purchased the property and deduction the deduction cannot be claimed by HUF when the name of property is that of individual and not in the name of HUF. The Ld. DR further submitted that the amount has to be utilised in the name of HUF only. The Property sold was that of ancestral property of HUF. Owner is not HUF and, therefore, claim of exemption under Section 54 of the Act was not justifiable and the same should have been taken into account by the earlier assessment proceedings carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act,. Thus, the reopening was totally valid. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
