Case Law Details
Manohar Reddy Basani Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Assessing Officer having concluded that the assessee having neither disclosed the capital gains in the return of income nor claimed any deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to get any deduction u/s 54F, in the same way he should not have added the capital gains to the income of the assessee since there was no disclosure of the same in the return of income. At any rate, the first appellate authority ought to have considered the issue on merits since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (supra) would not debar the first appellate authority to consider the fresh claim, if any, so as to arrive at the correct taxable income. Hon’ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt Ltd (140 ITR 705 at page 722), observed that unlike a law suit in civil appeals, in tax litigation, it cannot be treated as a “lis” between two rival parties but the job of the Assessing Officer is to arrive at the correct taxable income. Therefore, merely on account of fact that the assessee has not claimed exemption, the same could not have been denied. We therefore set-aside the orders passed by the A.O. and direct the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad and it pertains to A.Y. 2010-2011. Following grounds were urged before us:
“1. The Learned First Appellate Authority has erred in not accepting the pea of the appellant that the sale receipts of the property was invested with residential house and hence he was entitled to a deduction u/s 54F.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
