TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh to his wife - the finding of the AO appears to be contradictory – there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act - the CIT (A) has power coterminous with that of the AO - When the evidence produced is glaring and speaks for itself, it will serve no purpose in getting it verified again by the AO – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA. No. 1752/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. And Saktijit Dey, J.M.,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri Solgy Jose. T. Kottaram For the Respondent : Sri K.C. Devdas ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, J.M. This appeal by the department is directed against the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakh to his wife Mrs. Farida Banu as advance for purchase of 50% of the property bearing door No.20-4-194/7/15, New Shalibanda, Khilwat. 4. It was also submitted by the assessee that as he was not aware of exemption u/s 54F he did not make any claim at the time of filing the return which has been made now. In support of such claim, the assessee furnished a copy of agreement dated 24-2-2007 made on a plain paper between him and his wife mentioning that ₹ 50 Lakh is to be paid by the assessee to his wife for 50% share in the property and out of which the assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 40 lakh. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 54F by observing that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly disallowed the same. Being aggrieved of the disallowance of exemption u/s 54F, assessee challenged the same before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee vis a vis the materials available on record, allowed the claim of assessee by holding as under: 5.2 Coming to the claim of deduction/s 54 of the Act, there is strength in the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has paid ₹ 40 lakhs as per the agreement dated 24-2-2007 for the purchase of share of the house property from his wife. The contention of the appellant was further supported by the municipal certificate produced by the appellant during the appeal proceedings and municipal taxes were being paid by the appellant as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50% ownership over the property. 6. In aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 54F of the Act. So far as the contention of the department that the CIT (A) has violated the provision of Rule 46A, we are unable to accept such contention. It is not disputed that the CIT (A) has power coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the CIT (A) certainly can consider material which is necessary for deciding the issue. It is not mandatory that in every case, the CIT (A) has to provide an opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A. When the evidence produced is glaring and speaks for itself, it will serve no purpose in ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
