9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to Rs. 29,19,862/- of the IT. Act, by upholding the learned assessing officer's contention that the appellant does not fulfill the specified conditions. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in assuming that a claim for deduction, which had not been made in the original return of income cannot be entertained by the appellate authority." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading and dealing in listed securities, filed her return of income for AY 2010-11 on 28-10-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 8,29,389. The case has been selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18-03- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the assessment order as well as the written submission of the AR. I have also perused the details filed by the AR. the facts of the case it appears there is no dispute regarding the incidence of capital gain. Both the AO and the appellant are in agreement appellant is liable for long term capital gain. The only dispute thereafter is regarding allowability of deduction u/s 54 or u/s 54F. As far as the eligibility for deduction u/s 54 is concerned the same is not applicable to the appellant because capital gain has not arisen in this case from transfer of a long term capital asset being buildings or land appurtenant there to, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head income from house property. In ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt that an assessee not amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The appellant has not rebutted the ratio of decision quoted by the AO. Thus after considering the facts of the case and the legal positions, grounds of appeal no 1 is dismissed." 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming rejection of deduction claimed u/s 54 / 54F of the Act merely on the technical ground that such claim has not been made by filing revised return. Otherwise, nowhere the Ld.CIT(A) has pointed out that the claim made u/s 54 / 54F is not eligible. The Ld.AR further submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Goetze India Ltd (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia Ltd (supra), there is no provision to admit new claim without filing revised return of income. The AO has technically accepted that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; however, denied such claim only for the reason that such claim is not made by filing revised return of income by relying upon the decision of CIT vs Goetze India Ltd (supra). Admittedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case clearly stated that the power of AO is restricted to admit a new claim only if such claim is made by filing revised return of income. However, in the same decision, the Court further reiterated that the findings of the Court in any way does not impinge the powers of the appellate authorities to admit new cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
