| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2923 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250
Though AO had been barred from accepting any new claims, but no such bar had been imposed on appellate authorities, including CIT(A). Assessee was in second round of the litigation and claim of assessee for deduction under section 54 had not been decided properly and its evidence of investment or booking had not been examined in perspective of relevant CBDT circulars and judicial decisions. Accordingly, matter was remanded back to AO for examination afresh with direction to assessee to produce all documentary evidences before AO at the earliest.
|
Appeal CIT(A) - New claim - Assessee claimed deduction under section 54 before CIT(A) - AO and CIT(A) having not examined assessee's claim properly in the light of relevant CBDT circulars and judicial decisions
Assessee sold certain flat and claimed deduction under section 54 as regards sale proceeds invested in purchase of new flat. AO denied assessee's claim for deduction under section 54 on the ground that no such claim was made in return of income and assessee already owned residential house at the time of the investment in the residential house claimed for deduction under section 54. On further appeal, CIT(A) dismissed claim under section 54 on the ground that assessee had not raised any ground of appeal or additional ground before him. On further appeal, Tribunal on the issue of exemption under section 54, directed CIT(A) to consider additional ground raised by assessee after going through evidences which would be produced by assessee. CIT(A) in second round of proceedings merely dismissed the claim on the ground that conveyance deed in respect of new flat was executed after approximately seven years from the date of sale of residential flat on second floor and thus assessee was not entitled for deduction under section 54. Assessee submitted that CIT(A) had not decided the issue properly and not considered the evidences regarding investment made for booking of flat. According to assessee, in view of various CBDT Circulars, booking made for investment in flat was eligible for deduction under section 54. Held: Though AO had been barred from accepting any new claims, but no such bar had been imposed on appellate authorities, including CIT(A). Assessee was in second round of the litigation and claim of assessee for deduction under section 54 had not been decided properly and its evidence of investment or booking had not been examined in perspective of relevant CBDT circulars and judicial decisions. The CBDT in Circular No. 672, dated 16-12-1993 has clarified that in terms of a scheme of allotment and construction of flat/house by co-operative societies or the other institution are similar to those mentioned in para 2 of CBDT Circular No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 and thus such case may be treated as the construction of the flat for the purpose of sections 54 and 54F. Accordingly, matter was remanded back to AO for examination afresh with direction to assessee to produce all documentary evidences before AO at the earliest.
REFERRED : Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 157 Taxmann 1 (SC) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1528 (SC) and CIT v. Smt. Beena Jain, (1996) 217 ITR 363 (Bom) : 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0078 (Bom-HC).
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2011-12
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |