TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the Assessing Officer cannot allow deduction claimed during the course of assessment proceedings, it can be claimed only in revised return filed before him. The assessee’s return was belated, which cannot be revised under the law. Therefore, the revenue’s appeal is set aside to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard and consider the above observation made by this Bench. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes only. - ITA No. 1021/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2015 - SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Revenue : Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl. CIT) For The Assessee : None (Date was noted) ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, not having the knowledge of the IT law and also made consultation about the appeal filed or not filed. The ld CIT(A) after considering the assessee s reply and relying upon the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji ors. (167 ITR 471) to condone the delay. The revenue has challenged this condonation and submitted that the reasons given by the ld CIT(A) are not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal but we have considered the submissions made by the assessee as well as finding given by the ld CIT(A), the assessee s case is deserved to be condoned the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the revenue s appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gain of ₹ 37,07,560/- as investment made in the name of his wife not in the name of assessee himself. Show cause notice given by the Assessing Officer has been reproduced at page No. 2 and 3 of the assessment order. In response to this show cause notice, assessee replied vide letter dated 31/10/2011. The assessee s reply has also been reproduced on page 3 and 4 of the assessment order. After considering the assessee s reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that the assessee himself had not offered the long term capital gain on sale of above said property. However, he had claimed exemption U/s 54 of the Act at ₹ 37,07,560/- on the capital gain raised on sale of property. The assessee has not made investment in his own name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new house has been purchased from the sale proceeds of the property old house, albeit in the name of his wife who cannot be paid to be a stranger. Thus, the appellant has been able to establish the factual position regarding investment of the sale proceeds of the old house in the new house. This fact has not been disputed even by the A.O. The only objection of the A.O. is that the house has been purchased in the name of his wife. In view of the language of Sec. 54, it does not appear to be a valid objection. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra) has held as under: It is moreover to be noted that the assessee in the present case has not purchased the new house in the name of a stranger or somebody who is conn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , deleted. 5. Now revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR argued that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2009-10 on 31/3/2010. The due date of return was 31/7/2009. The assessee had sold house property for a sale consideration of ₹ 91 lacs. This sale consideration has not been disclosed by the assessee but information was got by the Assessing Officer as per AIR. Thereafter case was selected for scrutiny. When the ld Assessing Officer issued notice for scrutiny, he claimed that the capital gain had been invested U/s 54 of the Act in the name of wife. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of investment made and claimed the deduction by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. However, no supporting eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, he prayed to confirm the order of the ld Assessing Officer. 6. None was attended on behalf of assessee at the time of hearing after date was noted by the ld AR. Shri P.C. Parwal being amicus curie informed the Bench that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal 214 Taxman 287/86 DTR 37 (Del) has held that deduction U/s 54F allowed in the name of wife. Further the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 75 DTR 402 (Kar.) has held that for availing exemption U/s 54 and 54EC, it is not necessary that purchase of property or investment in specified bond should be in the name of assessee only. In this case the investment in residential property and specified bond was made in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
