9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year 2017-18, on the following grounds: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which was not claimed in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd Vs CIT [(2006) 204 CTR 182 (SC)]? 2. The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee before us is a non-resident lady, and it appears that she had tenancy rights in a residential apart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in Section 54 of the Act. The second category of capital gains, which is a residual clause, consists of the capital gain on the sale of any long-term asset, other than a residential house. As far as this residual category is concerned, the qualifying investment is the net consideration on the sale of the asset, in respect of which capital gains are earned. When the sale consideration in question, or part thereof, is invested in the purchase or construction of a new house, within the prescribed time frame and subject to certain conditions, to that extent, the capital gains are exempted from tax. These provisions are contained in Section 54F of the Act. The difference between these two provisions is only with respect to qualifying invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of technicalities has been rejected, even though accepted to be correct on merits, by the Assessing Officer, and, while the assessee got the necessary relief from the Commissioner (Appeals), the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is now in challenge before us. 5. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim made by the assessee under section 54F on the ground that it amounts to a fresh claim made in the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, and, as the claim is not made by way of revising the income tax return and in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Goetz India Limited Vs CIT [(2006) 204 CTR 182 (SC)], the claim so made is inadmissible in law. The claim for exemption under section 54F was held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income tax return, and this claim was made by way of filing a letter, rather than by revising the income tax return. Taking note of this position, Their Lordships had observed that "The return was filed on 30-11-1995 by the appellant for the assessment year in question. On 12-1-1998, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer" (emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us). It was in this context that Their Lordships held that such a course of action was impermissible. That is not the case, as learned CIT(A) has rightly appreciated, before us. Here is a case in which a claim for exemption was rightly made, but only a wrong section was quoted while making a claim, which is qualitatively different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
