TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We first take-up the appeal of the Revenue in case of Ms Sheela Bhagwandas Nichlani in ITA No 889/Mum/2008. The revenue in this appeal has raised disputes on two different grounds. 2.1 The first dispute is regarding deduction claimed on account of compensation paid to Ramesh Nichlani while computing the capital gain from sale of property. The assessee who was in the business of financing had also declared capital gain on account of sale of property. The assessee had received ₹ 2,77,50,000 from sale of 50% share of property at Khar. While computing the capital, the assessee had also claimed deduction of ₹ 25 lakhs on account of payment to the tenant Shri Ramesh Nichlani and ₹ 24,95,000/- to the tenant Smt Prabhav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as satisfied by the explanation given and allowed the claim of the assessee, aggrieved by which the revenue is in appeal. 2.1.2 We have heard both the parties perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of deduction of ₹ 25 lakhs on account of payment to the tenant Shri Ramesh B Nichlani. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no evidence produced to show that Shri Ramesh Nichlani was a tenant. However, it appears that the assessee filed evidence in the form of Leave and License Agreement dated 16.9.1969 before CIT (A) to prove the tenancy based on which the claim was allowed. This was a fresh evidence and, therefore, opportunity was required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act. In appeal, the assessee filed a copy of agreement dated 3.12.1973 entered into between Ms Sheela Bhagwandas Nichlani, the assessee and Mr Bhagwandas A Nichlani, as per which, a residential house consisting of ground floor and two upper floors was required to be constructed for which funds was to be contributed by her husband. The agreement further provided that the land together with the structure was intended to be held jointly by both and in case the property was sold, the net sale proceeds were to be shared by two owners in the equal proportion. The assessee submitted that the agreement was a direct evidence of the assessee being 50% owner of the residential house. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act, both the parties agreed that the matter may be restored to the Assessing Officer for examination of the various additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT (A). We agree that fresh examination is necessary as the Assessing Officer had not been given opportunity in respect of the additional evidences filed before the CIT (A). We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after necessary examination of the evidences filed before the CIT (A) and after allowing of opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The appeal of the Revenue in case of Shri Bhagwandas A Nichlani in ITA 1706/Mum/2008. In this appeal only dispute raised by the Revenue is regarding claim of dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
