9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. 3. The Registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 232 days (the assessee has calculated 289 days). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit duly notarized praying for condonation of delay. The reason of delay averred in the affidavit is such that whenever the assessee enquired from his counsel about compliance of matter, the counsel informed that all compliances have been done. This way, despite repeated reminders the Counsel did not give proper feedback. Ultimately, the assessee approached another counsel, who verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rs. 2,12,87,525/- (+) Deposit of Rs. 40,00,000/- in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme, 1988, with an objective to construct a residential house property within a period of 3 years. The AO accepted the exemption claimed by assessee and allowed same while passing assessment-order. 5. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the records of assessment proceedings and found that during assessment-proceeding, the assessee had not furnished any documentary-proof in support of completion of construction of residential house within a period of 3 years. Therefore, the AO has not verified the claim assessee for exemption u/s 54F. Accordingly, the PCIT termed the assessment-order as erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue and initiated action of revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 54F although the AO has reduced the quantum of exemption by Rs. 10,98,653/- to set right a calculation mistake which had crept into original assessment-order. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to pass an appropriate order as warranted in the present situation. 8. Ld. DR dutifully supported the revision-order although he could not contradict the submissions made by Ld. AR. 9. We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the revision-order as well as the aforesaid consequential assessment-order passed by AO in pursuance of direction given by PCIT. We find that in the consequential assessment-order framed de novo, the AO has accepted assessee's submissions and again allowed exemption u/s 54F although he has reduced the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
