TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO adopts one of the possible view. Reverting back to impugned regular assessment, we notice that the Assessing Officer had claimed yet another regular assessment on 30.11.10 invoking section 153A/143(3) proceedings whilst assessing the total income of ₹ 18,62,400/- only. That being the case, it is sufficiently clear that the impugned second assessment dated 25.12.16 pertained to the search dated 05.08.14 only qua the alleged incriminating material found/seized. It emerges from the case records that the assessee had claimed the impugned section 54 and 54F deduction relief at the first instance in former assessment. This issue nowhere formed subject matter of deduction in the latter assessment therefore. Since the AO could not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own, Kolkata being built by Bengal Unitech on 10th June 2010 from Shri Ram Multicom Pvt Ltd by paying ₹ 40,00,000/-. There is no detail available on the record to show that as to when the flat was acquired by the assessee from Bengal Unitech. Just by purchasing of any right in the flat under construction, it cannot be said that the assessee has acquired any flat by way of 'Purchase or Construction. Therefore, the AO has wrongly allowed deduction u/s 54 54F, only on the basis of purchase of right in a flat under construction. From examination of record of AY 2014-15, it has been found that this right has been sold by the assessee in September, 2013. Therefore, I found that prima facie deduction u/s 54 54E, was wrongly allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. The department had carried out search in question dated 05.08.2014 in M/s Kushal Group, Kolkata. The same culminated in initiation of section 153A proceedings vide notice dated 20.03.2015. The assessee filed his return on 15.05.15 stating income of ₹ 18,62,070/-. The Assessing Officer then completed the regular assessment accepting the above return income. Suffice to say, it is the said assessment which has been subjected to revision proceedings in PCIT s order under challenge on the ground that the Assessing Officer has wrongly accepted the assessee s section 54 54F deduction claim (supra). 4. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective pleadings against and in support of the PCIT s assumption of revision ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
