9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-11 arises against the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata dated 16.03.2018 involving proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the PCIT has assumed his revision jurisdiction whilst setting aside the assessment in question dated 25.12.16 as under: "5. As per de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 allowed by AO without ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year or not, after taking the possession of the flat and accordingly determine, the eligibility of assessee to allow deduction u/s 54 & 54F of the Act and then pass a fresh assessment order in this regard by computing correct amount of taxable Long Term Capital Gain in the hand of the assessee. Other additions made by the AO in original assessment order shall remain intact. 6. In the result, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer 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 jurisdiction. Hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 holds that before an assessment is sought to be revised in proceedings u/s 263 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction relief at the first instance in former assessment. This issue nowhere formed subject matter of deduction in the latter assessment therefore. We conclude in these facts that since the Assessing Officer could not have even taken up the assessee's above deduction claim during latter assessment, the PCIT has erred in law and on facts in terming the same as erroneous causing prejudice to inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
