Case Law Details
DCIT Cen Vs Divya Sameer Gehlaut (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee claimed benefit u/s 54 on a different document, whereas ultimately the transaction completed on altogether a different set of conditions and property, which is not permissible to claim benefit u/s. 54 of the Act. Accordingly, benefit u/s. 54 denied.
Facts- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under the CASS and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3). During the course of assessment proceedings, claim of the assessee u/s. 54 was examined and the same was denied. Consequently, an addition of Rs. 13,84,87,515/- was added back to the income of the assessee. Assessee being aggrieved with this order of AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Ld. CIT (A). Now revenue being aggrieved with the appeal order preferred the present appeal before us.
Conclusion- Held that the allotment letter initially submitted by the assessee before the AO is no more in existence and acted upon. Rather assessee entered into in altogether in new transaction which is nowhere related with the claim of the assessee with reference to section 54 of the Act. It is a clear case where assessee claimed benefit u/s 54 on a different document, whereas ultimately the transaction completed on altogether a different set of conditions and property, which is not permissible to claim benefit u/s. 54 of the Act.
Held that throughout the actions and intentions of the assessee were not very clear. It is also observed that assessee was never in a position to confirm the conditions lay down in section 54, despite of the fact that a liberal view may be taken in this case. In the given situation, we do not agree with the view taken by the Ld. CIT (A); hence the impugned order is set aside and the addition made by AO is confirmed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
