9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 could be granted when it was originally not claimed during the assessment proceedings. The assessee for assessment year 2009-10 had claimed a set off of capital gains from sale towards house property as against capital losses and the loss in respect of shares. The set off was not permitted. In the meanwhile, the assessee had purchased new property, apparently with the intention of seeking the benefit under Section 54F. The original property was sold on 20.06.2008; the new property was purchased in July, 2008. However, the benefit of Section 54F was not claimed when the return was filed on 30.09.2009. The assessment order disallowed the set off. This resulted in a capital gain. By then, the time to file the revised return had elap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006), 284 ITR 323 (SC), also goes against the assessee." Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee urges that the impugned order of the CIT (A) under Section 264 of the Act is erroneous. It is submitted that revisional power is sufficiently wide as to permit the correction of an order so as to permit the assessee the benefit of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of his position, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT, (2004) 192 CTR JK 50 and S.R. Koshti vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 276 ITR 165 Guj. It was highlighted that the Jammu & Kashmir High Court's d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nks fit" is only qualified by subject to provisions of this Act. Therefore, unless there is a direct impediment to the power under Section 264 (exercisable by the Commissioner) which inhibits the grant of relief, it is per se admissible. The impediment may be in the form of a substantive provision which might place a time limit, to the grant of such relief or it may be otherwise. In the present case, the concerned provision Section 54F, does not per se contain any such impediment. Therefore, as far as the text of the provision goes, this Court is of the opinion that there is no bar in the grant of the relief despite the assessee apparently having missed the bus and having committed the mistake. The interpretation of this Court is clarified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
