TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier occasion by the revised return. The judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ) does not prevent the CIT(A) in entertaining this issue. Accordingly, we remit the issue to the CIT(A) for deciding it afresh. - ITA No. 1591/Hyd/2012, ITA No. 1593/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2013 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Sri Laxmi Nivas Sharma Respondent by: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: The above two appeals by different assessees are directed against different orders of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 31.7.2012 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. The grounds and facts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse property in the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee's share of capital gain from the said sale was ₹ 34,03,603. The assessee, along with 6 co- owners, had invested in a house property by investing ₹ 1,95,00,000 towards the cost of house and ₹ 26,32,520 towards stamp duty, totalling to ₹ 2,21,32,520. The assessee's share of investment therein was ₹ 36,88,753. Accordingly, the assessee claimed capital gain exemption of ₹ 34,03,603 in entirety u/s. 54 in the A.Y. 2004-05, claiming that the sale proceeds were invested in acquiring the new house. Subsequently, however, the above mentioned 'new house property' in whose respect exemption u/s. 54 was claimed, was sold fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in the course of reassessment proceedings herself admitted the Short term Capital gains of ₹ 29,64,850/ - without disclosing any investment in the second property. Accordingly, the CIT(A) decided the grounds raised in the appeal against the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the CIT(A) first not condoned the delay in filing these appeals before him on the reason that the delay in filing of appeal in the present case was only on account of remissness of the assessee. It cannot even be said that such delay was unintentional, because if any investment out of the sale proceeds of the original property was made in the property acquired on 5.1.2005, nothing would have prevented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appropriate to condone the delay. When a question of substantial justice is involved, technicalities are to be ignored. The assessee had a bona-fide belief that reopening of assessment was correct and the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 54(1) of the Act. Being so, in our opinion, the bona-fide belief is a reason for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). If the assessee is otherwise entitled for exemption u/s. 54(1), we direct the CIT(A) to examine the issue afresh and decide the issue in accordance with law. As the appellate authorities are empowered to entertain the claim during the appeal proceedings which was not put before the AO on earlier occasion by the revised return. The judgement of Supreme Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
