TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidences furnished during the appellate stage without remanding the same to AO. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Surat may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." 2. The brief facts of case are that the assessee sold non-agricultural plots at village Mota Varachha and derived net sale consideration of Rs. 66,72,750/- after exemption of proportionate non-agricultural expenses of Rs. 3,84,100/- from the total consideration of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in inquiry made through an inspector that no new house was constructed on the newly purchased land in the last 3 years and if the field report contradicted the claim of the assessee that construction of residential house on the said land was complete and therefore the AO rejected the claim for exemption u/s. 54F also to the assessee. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under:- "I have gone through the assessment order as well as the contentions of the AR. It is observed from the assessment order that the assessing officer mainly rejected the claim of the appellant on two grounds viz. that the appellant intended to claim exemption U/s. 54B but later on during assessment proceedings, claimed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Scheme Account for the purpose of construction activities of residential house immediately after opening the said account. The development permission issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation shows that the same was issued on 21-07-2007 which was before the return of income filed by the appellant. Therefore, 1 am inclined to believe that it was a clear case of typographical error in mentioning Section 54B instead of Section 54F as all corroborative evidences suggested that the appellant intended to claim exemption U/s. 54F. Moreover the appellant's authorized representative had already clarified the mistake during the course of assessment proceedings itself and therefore, the assessing officer was duty bound to allow the legitimate clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed exemption U/s. 54F of the Act and therefore, the assessing officer is not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption of Rs. 66,72,750/-." 4. Ld. DR submitted before us that the revenue in the appeal filed before the Tribunal by way of ground no. 2 as raised a ground of appeal that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidences furnished during the appellate stage without remanding the same to the AO. He pointed out from the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the additional evidences filed by the assessee were registered purchase deed of land, development permission and building use permission certificate issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation It was therefore his prayer that the matter should be restored back to the ....