Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 603 - AT - Income TaxValidity of adoption of valuation report – facts relating to the valuer not furnished any instance of sale to justify the estimation of the cost verified or not – value and indexation of property as on 01/04/1981 to be taken or not - Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the revised return has been filed within the limitation period and, therefore, is a valid return - AO has also not given any reason as to why the valuation adopted as on 01.4.1981 by the registered valuer is not acceptable – the AO is rightly directed to take the value of the property as on 01.4.1981, which option has been exercised by the assessee, at the value taken by the registered valuer and to also take the indexation of the value of the property as on 01.4.1981, as determined in the registered valuer’s report and to re-compute the capital gains on the property as well as appellant’s share in the property as per the registered valuer’s report – Decided against revenue. Validity of assessment u/s 143(3) – bar of limitation – Held that:- The original return of income became no-est - The period of limitation of issuance of notice has therefore to be calculated from the date of filing of the revised return of income - the CIT(A) has taken as if the original return was filed u/s.139(1) of the Act but the contention of the assessee is that the original return was filed u/s. 139(4) of the Act and such return cannot be revised u/s.139(5) of the Act – assessee rightly relied upon CIT vs. Panorama Builders (P.) Ltd. [2005 (4) TMI 50 - GUJARAT High Court] wherein it has been held that the section 292BB does not apply to issuance of notice, neither it cures the defect or enlarges statutory period where a mandatory notice under section 143(2) is required to be issued within limitation fixed under the Act - assessee contended that the return was filed u/s.139(4) of the Act as the same neither was furnished during the period prescribed u/s.139(1) nor was furnished in pursuance of the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act - It is also not coming out from the record whether any notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued in pursuance thereof the assessee furnished the return which was later on revised vide revised return dated 24/10/2008 – thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of assessee. Claim of investment made in residential house on 25/08/2006 u/s 54 – Held that:- CIT(A) has not given any finding with regard to the investment made in flat - For deciding the issue regarding entitlement for deduction u/s.54/54F of the Act, the CIT(A) has given finding only on the investment made in the REC bonds – the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A). Disallowance of claim made u/s.54EC of the Act on the ground that the investment was made belatedly – Held that:- As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III Versus M/s. Cello Plast [2012 (8) TMI 527 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] – a person is entitled to invest in the bonds upto the last available date - If that be so, it must follow that the extension ought to be granted at least for the period prior to the expiry of six months when the bonds were not available and upto the date on which they were ultimately made available - an assessee would be entitled to a reasonable extension which must then be decided, depending upon the facts of each case – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back for adjudication – Decided in favour of assessee.
|