9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). We also observe that there were no additional evidences entertained by the CIT(A) on this issue and rather all those evidences had been filed even at the level of ld. AO. DR fairly conceded that it is a case of deduction claimed u/sec. 54 and not 54F - The findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld and the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. - SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, DR ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (for short, CIT(A)‟), dated 10.03.2023 for A.Y.2017-18 as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed her return of income on 04.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.23, 16,870/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 142(1) 143(2) were issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). In response, the assessee filed capital gains/loss statement, balance sheet, bank account and evidence of investment in capital gains scheme etc. The AO made the additions by observing as under:- i) During the year under consideration the assessee sold property at Gultekdi, Pune and purchased a new property at Anand Nagar Sahakar Gruharachana Sanstha on 9.07.2016 and claimed deduction u/s.54F of Act after claiming indexed cost of improvement. iii) As per balance sheet, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had satisfied the conditions for claiming deduction u/sec. 54 of the Act, and hence, the matter was allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. We observe from the documents/materials filed on record that the assessee had never claimed deduction u/sec. 54F, but had rather claimed deduction u/sec. 54 as rightly held by the ld. CIT(A). The requisite details for claiming deduction u/sec. 54 had also been filed before the AO and accordingly, on examination of all those documents, the deduction was allowed by the ld. CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We also observe that there were no additional evidences entertained by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and rather all those evidences had been filed even at the level o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
