Tribunal grants deduction under section 54F, deems assignment deed valid. Sundry creditor balance issue remanded for review.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal challenging the denial of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, holding the Assignment deed valid and granting exemption. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,01,45,330/- on account of sundry creditor balances, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration due to discrepancies, allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge against denial of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
2. Challenge against addition of Rs. 5,01,45,330/- on account of sundry creditor balances.

Issue 1: Challenge against denial of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act

The appeal was made by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17, specifically challenging the denial of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading, claimed the deduction based on the purchase of a residential bungalow and subsequent sale of plots. The AO and CIT(A) questioned the validity of the Assignment deed dated 10-04-2015, stating it was a self-serving document. However, the assessee argued that the deed was valid as consent from MIDC was obtained prior to the execution. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, held that the Assignment deed was valid and allowed the assessee's claim for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act.

Issue 2: Challenge against addition of Rs. 5,01,45,330/- on account of sundry creditor balances

The second issue involved the challenge against the addition of Rs. 5,01,45,330/- on account of sundry creditor balances. The AO questioned the entries related to creditors, which were later rectified in the subsequent year. The CIT(A) upheld the addition under section 68 of the Act, emphasizing that the assessee paid taxes based on the alleged wrong entry. The assessee, through the Chartered Accountant, explained that the entry was a mistake and provided additional evidence to support the claim. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the AO's findings and the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the additional evidence provided. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Separate Judgement by Judges:
No separate judgement was delivered by the judges in this case.

---