TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 54 as the assessee had specifically claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act in his return filed in response to notice u/s 148 AO has disallowed claim u/s 54F by alleging that the assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of asset . Therefore, in our view, the entire assessment passed by the AO is wrong application of facts. Even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) was competent enough to appreciate the entire facts of the case in his order and CIT(A) has thoroughly discussed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and finally allowed the claim u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, in our view the whole discussion as to whether or not the assessee was owning more than one residential houses other than new asset on the date of original asset has become redundant as the assessee in return filed in response to notice u/s 148 had specifically claimed deduction u/s 54 of Income Tax Act and thus we are of the considered view that there is no such restriction on the assessee under that section. Even otherwise, second claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act cannot be treated as fresh claim as at very first instance i.e. in first notice issued u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified in accepting the revised ground of appeal u/s 54 for which no opportunity was provided to the Revenue to examine the conditions stipulated u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, additional grounds of appeal accepted by the ld.CIT(A) was in violation of Rule 46A. C.O. No. 2/JP/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 (Assessee) 1. Alternatively the AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of Rs. 94,39,201/- and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No. 4 of the assessee which was before him on this issue. 2. The AO has erred in reopening the case of the assessee after rejecting most genuine objections of the assessee against reopening of the case without following proper procedure as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court and ld.CIT(A) has erred in rejecting this Ground of appeal. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay 92 days in filing the Cross Objection by the assessee for which the assessee submitted that total tax effect in this case was only Rs. 19,44,475/- and the assessee was under bona fide belief that the appeal of the Income Tax Department was not maintainable for the reason of low tax effect and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake in the computation of LTCG income and therefore filed a revised computation of income along with covering letter dated 28.12.2015 declaring sale consideration of plot at Rs. 1,00,00,000, Investment in new house property Rs. 1,00,37,910 and deduction u/s 54F Rs. 94,39,201 and LTCG income at Rs. Nil and total income of Rs 18,21,680/- (Copy at Paper book page no 10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by the DCIT, Circle 7, Jaipur on 24/2/2016 and the returned income was accepted. (Copy of order at Paper book page no 14.) Thereafter, the assessee received one notice under section 148 dated 18/7/2017. (Copy at Paper book page no 15). In reply to this notice u/s 148 the assessee filed return of income on 9/8/2017 declaring total income of Rs 18,21,680/- after claiming deduction u/s 54 for Rs 94,39,201 (Copy at Paper book page no 16 to 18.). The assessee asked for the reasons for reopening of the case by letter dated 14.8.2017 (Copy at Paper book page no. 19). The AO supplied the reasons for reopening vide letter dated 26/9/2017 (copy enclosed at Paper book page no. 20 to 21). The reasons recorded by the AO are as under: Assessment of above individual was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment. 3.2 Against this order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) through e-filing on 9/1/2019 along with form No. 35 and Grounds of appeal. However, since there was some factual mistake in the original grounds of appeal, the revised grounds of appeal were filed before ld. CIT(A) along with written submissions dated 8.12.2021 (Copy at Paper book page no. 89 to 104) with the following request: In the above case, the assessee has filed the appeal through e-filing on 9/1/2019 along with form No. 35 and Grounds of appeal. However, now the assessee wants to file Revised Grounds of Appeal, which are as under and which may kindly be taken on record. Thus the Original Grounds of appeal and Revised Grounds of appeal of the assessee before ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC are as under:- Original grounds of appeal of the assessee as per Form No. 35 filed on 9/1/2019 Revised grounds of appeal, as filed in written submissions dated 8.12.2021 before NFAC 1. The order of the learned AO under section 147/143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law and against facts of the case. 2. The learned AO has erred in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original grounds of appeal the assess didn t mentioned the change in section from section 54F to 54. 2. The assessee revised the grounds of appeal after the remand report was submitted by the AO. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the revised ground of appeal u/s 54 for which no opportunity was provided to the Revenue to examine the conditions stipulated u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, additional grounds of appeal accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) was in violation of Rule 46A. Submissions of the assessee on Ground No 1 of the department: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 94,39,201/- made by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the IT Act even when in the original grounds of appeal the assess didn t mentioned the change in section from section 54F to 54. On the above ground, the following is submitted: 1. It is submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) through efiling on 9.1.2019. The Revised Grounds of Appeal were filed before the CIT(A) along with written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge no. 40) it is mentioned that the area of Plot sold was 345.5 sq., meter in which one room, toilet and boundary wall was constructed having covered area of 200 sq. Feet. Therefore, the property sold by the assessee was a Residential House fit for residence of a family. 3. It is submitted that the assessee relies on the decision by jurisdictional ITAT in the case of - Seema Singh Beniwal v. DCIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 359 (ITAT Jaipur) ( Copy at case law paper book page no. 1 to 5) - in which a 10 x20 i.e. 201 sq. ft. (23.33 sq. yards) constructed area on plot of land of 3500 Sq ft. (388 sq. yards) was considered to be a residential house and deduction u/s 54 was allowed to the assessee. The findings given by the ITAT are as under: Held that the question whether constructed are of size 10'x20', i.e., 201 sq. Ft. can be treated as a residential house or not. It is clarified by the CBDT that purchase of plot of land is a part of residential house for claiming of deduction under section 54F. The revenue itself has admitted that it is a habitable as a servant quarter, which in other words, was habitable for human being either servant or master or any employee. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions: Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39 [(1)] 40 [ 41 [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee 42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43 [***], being buildings or 44 lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house 44 , the income of which is chargeable under the head Income from house property (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of 45 [one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased 46 ], or has within a period of three years after that date 47 [constructed, one residential house in India], 46 then], instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, (i) if the amount of the capital gain 48 [is greater than the cost of 49 [the residential house] so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sec. 54F: [Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) 59 [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a 60 residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 61 [two years] after the date on which the transfer took place 60 purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date 62 [constructed, one residential house in India] (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 ; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d finally allowed the claim u/s 54. Learned CIT(A) has done only what the learned AO failed to do. 14. In view of specific provisions of the Act, the whole discussions as to whether or not the assessee was owning more than one Residential Houses, other than new asset, on the date of transfer of original asset, has become redundant as the assessee, in return filed in response to notice u/s 148, had claimed deduction u/s 54 of Income tax act and there is no such restriction on the assessee under that section. 15. It is submitted that in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Armine Hamied Khan [2022] 142 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai - Trib.) ( Copy at Case law paper book page no. 6 to 7) the Hon ble Mumbai ITAT permitted the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, to claim deduction under section 54F in place of under section 54 (as claimed by the assessee while filing the return of income). It was held that it was not a fresh claim. The findings of Hon ble ITAT are as under: Whether since a claim for exemption was rightly made by assessee and only a wrong section was quoted while making said claim, same would be qualitatively different from making a fresh claim and, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 196 ITR 188) where Hon ble Supreme Court has held that provisions giving incentive for growth and development should be interpreted liberally and the restriction on exemption should be construed so as to advance objective and not to frustrate it. The exact findings of the Hon ble court are as under: Since a provision intended for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it, too, has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it. In this matter kindly also see the judgements in the case of CIT v. Krishna Copper Steel Rolling Mills [1992] 60 Taxman 93/193 ITR 281 (SC), CIT v. Baby Marine Exports [2007] 160 Taxman 160/290 ITR 323 (SC) and followed in Arvind Gupta v. ITO [2008] 116 TTJ 92 (JP). Therefore, the benefit of liberal interpretation of law should be given to the assessee. 19. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has correctly allowed deduction u/s 54 of Income tax act and his order should be upheld. Submissions of the assessee on Ground No. 2 of the department. The assessee revised the grounds of appeal after the remand report was submitted by the AO. On the facts and in the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d grounds of appeal also in Ground No.2, before CIT(A), the assessee claimed deduction under deduction 54 only. In alternate ground No.4 the assessee claimed deduction under section 54F of Income Tax Act. The learned CIT(A), after understanding full facts of the case, accepted Ground No. 2 and gave deduction to the assessee u/s 54. 4. It is submitted that the powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) can do what the AO can do. We draw your kind attention towards provisions of sub-section (4) of section 250 of Income Tax Act which deals with Procedure in Appeal . As per sub-section (4) the CIT(A) may direct the AO to make further enquiry and report result of the same to him. The use of the word may signify intention of the law that CIT(A) may or may not refer any matter to the AO to make further enquiry. May is a word which is different from the word shall . Therefore, in this case since the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54 in return filed in response to notice under Sec. 148, the CIT(A) was satisfied with the arguments and submissions of the assessee, therefore he allowed the appeal to the assessee without referring the matter to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity to examine the same and give his comments. 8. In this case the assessee filed application under rule 46A of Income tax Rules for acceptance of additional evidences. The learned CIT (A) after considering the remand report of the AO accepted the additional evidences. After submission of this remand report the CIT(A) did not consider any necessity of taking a fresh remand report from the AO. The learned CIT (A) has also discussed this fact in para 5 and para 6.2.2 of his order. 9. Therefore, the CIT(A) after examining all the facts and documentary evidences, has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee by allowing him deduction under section 54. CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE The assessee has e-filed the cross objections in form no. 36A dated 22.2.2023 along with application for condonation of delay and affidavit. The same may kindly be allowed. The Cross objections of the assessee are as under: 1. Alternatively, the learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F Rs 94,39,201/- and the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No.4 of the assessee which was before him on this issue. 2. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for residence of any family and for all practical purpose it was only a vacant land and cannot be called a residential House by any stretch of imagination. However, due to inadvertent mistake of the assessee, it was shown as House 2 in the Balance Sheet of the assessee. 6. In this so-called structure, the undivided share of the assessee was which comes to only 5.62 square metres. (60.5 sq. ft.) By no stretch of imagination, such a small construction can be called an independent residential house, so as to disentitle the assessee a deduction u/s 54F of income tax act. Further, the assessee was not the exclusive owner of such property. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was the owner of two-house properties on the date of transfer of original asset. Reliance is placed on the following decision: 2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 (Mumbai - Trib.) Anant R Gawande v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Copy at case law paper book page no. 13-16) Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Ownership of more than one house) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where a residential property is jointly own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see also filed copy of Ledger Account of Plot No. 160 Indira Colony Jaipur in the books of Nagar Nigam Jaipur on 4.6.2012 (which is a date prior to date of sale of original asset i.e. 27/7/2012) in which this property is shown as vacant land. (copy at Paper book page no. 79) Learned AO has refused to accept this evidence ( at page no. 8 of AO order) for the reason that it was not neither having signature nor any seal of the issuing department. In this regard, it is submitted that it was copy of the Ledger Account of Nagar Nigam which is the authority authorized by State Govt for maintenance of land records. If the learned AO had any doubt, he could have easily deputed Inspector of the department to make necessary enquiry from Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. Learned AO has failed in doing so and simply brushed aside this important piece of evidence filed by the assessee. 9. Vibhajan Patra: It is further submitted that Plot No. 160, Indira Colony, Banipark, Jaipur was in the joint name of the assessee and his wife Dr Smt. Madhu Rathuri. This plot was purchased sometime in January 2001. At the time of purchase there was some small construction in the Southern Portion of the plot (kindly see M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Smt. Madhu Ratudi 3,50,000 30/1/2001 Purchase of undivided share in Plot No. 160, Indira Colony, Bani park, Jaipur jointly with wife Smt. Madhu Ratudi 3,50,000 Total 7,00,000 share of the assessee 3,50,000 Value shown in the Balance Sheet of the assessee in Schedule 1 of Fixed Assets as House 2 along with Stamp Duty and other charges 4,38,675 27/10/2004 Demolition of Old Structure on the above plot of land through Contractor Shri Gopal Lal Kumawat 10/6/2011 Division of above plot of land between the assessee and his wife Dr Madhu Rathuri as per Vibhajan Deed Deed of Partition 27/7/2012 Sale of Residential House by assessee on which the assessee had Capital Gain on which deduction under section 54/54F was claimed 1,00,00,000 12. In view of above facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed assets assessee had shown two residential houses . 4. In this regard it was submitted that the assessee was not owner of more than one Residential House. 5. In Schedule I of Fixed Assets attached to the Balance Sheet (Copy at Paper book page no. 7) the assessee had given following information: SN. Particulars 1. House 574405.00 2. House 2 438675.00 In this schedule the assessee had nowhere stated that these two houses were residential houses. It is not clear from where the AO gathered the information that these two houses were residential houses. There could be following possibilities in this case: a. Both the houses were residential houses. b. Both the houses were commercial houses. c. One house was residential and the other house was commercial house property. From the balance sheet, how the learned AO could gather the information that both the houses shown in balance sheet were residential houses. How the learned AO ruled out the other two possibilities to form a belief that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as failed in passing any speaking order on the specific issue raised by the assessee in his Objections- as to how the AO considered both the houses shown in the Balance Sheet as Residential Houses - which is in direct violation of law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft Limited. 10. Learned CIT(A) in para 6.1 of his order has simply stated that: Objections raised by the appellant were disposed by the AO by way of passing a speaking order and then only reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Therefore, the AO had followed the proper procedure and has framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Hence ground of appeal no. 1 and 3 are dismissed. Therefore, CIT(A) has also not given any clear finding on this issue. Due to above reasons assessment order passed by the learned AO, in violation of principles as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and the judgment cited by the respective parties. For deciding the controversy in question raised by the Department by raising grounds a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief is allowed u/s 54 of the Act. The ground of the appeal is allowed. Aggrieved by the said relief by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) before us on the ground mentioned hereinabove. The first and foremost ground raised by the Revenue is challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the Act. The ld. DR specifically relied upon the order passed by the AO and reiterated the same before us. Apart from this, the ld DR also relied upon his submissions as made in pages 25 to 89 of the paper book and also AO report on cross objection of the assessee from pages 90 to 93 of the paper book. On the contrary, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also filed the written submission concerning this appeal of the Department. The Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is reproduced as under:- 1. Alternatively the AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of Rs. 94,39,201/- and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No. 4 of the assessee which was before him on this issue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. Alternatively, the learned AO has erred in not allowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- under section 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and on flimsy grounds. 5. The assessee craves his right to add, alter, amend or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier. From the above ground, it is manifestly clear that the assessee has taken the specific ground in his revised ground that the AO has erred in applying the provision of Section 54F of Income Tax Act to determine the claim of the assessee for deduction whereas the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 94,39,201/- u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 which should have been allowed to him. Since this ground was specifically raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) by exercising his power u/s 250 of the Act had accepted the revised grounds and after deliberating on the said ground, had passed the detailed order thereby allowing relief to the assessee u/s 54 of the Act. It is important to mention here that the assessee had already made specific assertion that while filing response to notice u/s 148 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered Deed, (paper book page no. 39) it is mentioned that the assessee had taken Water and Electricity connection on the said property, which were also transferred to the buyer of property. c. On page 9 of the Registered Deed, (paper book page no. 40) it is mentioned that the area of Plot sold was 345.5 sq., meter in which one room, toilet and boundary wall was constructed having covered area of 200 sq. Feet. Therefore, the property sold by the assessee was a Residential House fit for residence of a family. It is submitted that the assessee relies on the decision by jurisdictional ITAT in the case of - Seema Singh Beniwal v. DCIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 359 (ITAT Jaipur) ( Copy at case law paper book page no. 1 to 5) - in which a 10 x20 i.e. 201 sq. ft. (23.33 sq. yards) constructed area on plot of land of 3500 Sq ft. (388 sq. yards) was considered to be a residential house and deduction u/s 54 was allowed to the assessee. The findings given by the ITAT are as under: Held that the question whether constructed are of size 10'x20', i.e., 201 sq. Ft. can be treated as a residential house or not. It is clarified by the CBDT that purchase of plot of land is a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act by filing return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act which was not considered by the AO yet the ld. CIT(A) while considering the said plea gave relief to the assessee u/s 54 of the Act. Since the Revenue has taken a specific ground that the assessee could not have been given relief u/s 54 of the Act as he had claimed deduction u/s 54F only but in this regard the submission of the ld. DR factually incorrect. It is noticed that the assessee while filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act in which he has specifically claimed deduction of Rs. 94,23,201/- u/s 54 of the Act which at PB pages 16 to 18. Before proceeding further, we want to evaluate Section 54 and Section 54F of the Act which are reproduced below. Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39 [(1)] 40 [ 41 [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee 42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43 [***], being buildings or 44 lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house 44 , the income of which is chargeable un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount, if any, already utilized by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset : Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1), then, (i) the amount not so utilized shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. Sec. 54F: [Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) 59 [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any longterm capital asset, not being a 60 residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act in his return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the AO has disallowed claim u/s 54F by alleging that the assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of asset. Therefore, in our view, the entire assessment passed by the AO is wrong application of facts. Even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) was competent enough to appreciate the entire facts of the case in his order and in para 6.2.3 to 6.2.5 the ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly discussed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and finally allowed the claim u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, in our view the whole discussion as to whether or not the assessee was owning more than one residential houses other than new asset on the date of original asset has become redundant as the assessee in return filed in response to notice u/s 148 had specifically claimed deduction u/s 54 of Income Tax Act and thus we are of the considered view that there is no such restriction on the assessee under that section. Even otherwise, second claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Act cannot be treated as fresh claim as at very first instance i.e. in first notice is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advantage of the ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings on other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department, for, it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assesses on whom it is imposed by law, officers should: (a) Draw their attention to a refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other. (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. Apart from this, further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd.,196 ITR 188 where Hon ble Supreme Court has held that provisions giving i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
