TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1057
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer in not allowing any deduction u/s 54(1) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the appellant's claim of deduction u/s.54(1) at Rs. 25,46,760/-. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in not entertaining claim of the Appellant that deduction u/s 54(1) ought to be allowed at Rs. 25,46,760 as against Rs. 16,81,790/- claimed in the Return of Income on the ground that any claim which is not made in the return of income cannot be substituted without filing of revised return of income. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant's claim of deduction u/s.54(1) of Rs. 25,46,760/-, being the amount utilised by the appellant for acquiring the residential property on or before the due date of filing the return of income, ought to be allowed. 3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.14A of Rs. 7,69,490/under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, disallowance made ought to be deleted or in the alternative substantially reduced. 4. While confirming the disallowance of Rs. 7,69,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of residential house within a period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset. The assessee claimed that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 25,46,760/- till the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee also furnished a chart giving details of payment beginning from the date of 22.03.07 and ending on 15.03.12 and submitted that the purchase deed had been completed on 16.03.12. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that the assessee had not made the claim in the return of income of Rs. 25,46,760/-under section 54(1), rather the claim of deduction of Rs. 16,81,790/- only was made. He held that the assessee, since, had not revised the claim by way of filing a revised return of income, hence the claim of the assessee could not be considered in this respect. He, further, observed that the house in question was not transferred in the name of the assessee within three years from the date of sale of the house by the assessee. He held that the assessee had not acquired interest in the house which was allegedly purchased on a subsequent date. Hence, the AO rightly disallowed the claim of the deduction under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar under consideration, he had invested an amount of Rs. 25,46,760/-. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the said sum as deduction under section 54(1)/54F for the year under consideration. 8. So far as the contention that the assessee in the return of income had not claimed the amount of Rs. 25,46,760/- but of Rs. 16,81,790/- is concerned, we find that the powers and jurisdiction of the Ld. CIT(A) are coterminous with that of AO. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of "CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd." (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) while relying upon the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble High Courts, has held that even if a claim is not made before the AO, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim is not barred. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Jute Corporation of India Limited vs. CIT' 1991 Supp (2) SCC 744 (1991) 187 ITR 688 has further observed that the power of the Appellate Commissioner is coterminous with that of the Income Tax Officer and an appellate authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Rules. 11. In appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the assessee is a doctor by profession and has earned exempt income of Rs. 81,21,676/-. The assessee had incurred Demat expenditure of Rs. 19,381/-, advisory services charges of Rs. 3,28,731/- and securities transactions tax and other charges of Rs. 1,92,076/- aggregatingRs.5,40,188/- which amount was suo-moto disallowed by the assessee. However, the AO without considering the computation/working provided by the assessee straightway applied rule 8D and computed the disallowance accordingly. The assessee further submitted that during the earlier assessment year 2007-08, the disallowance under section 14A was restricted to bank charges and accounting charges by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that except the expenses suo-moto disallowed by the assessee, no other expenditure was incurred for earning of exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not agree with the contentions raised by the assessee. He observed that the assessee had debited bank charges of Rs. 5,426/-, miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 1,53,706/- which included accounting expenses of Rs. 71,500/-, printing and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recording any reasoning for his dissatisfaction with regard to the working/claim of the assessee, straightway applied Rule 8D against the mandate of the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) also ignored the mandate of the provisions of section 14 A, while confirming the disallowance. 14. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, we find that in this case the assessee suo-moto has disallowed expenditure of Rs. 5,40,188/- which he has claimed to have incurred on Demat charges, advisory services and security transactions tax. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that no expenditure was incurred in relation to exempt income for the year under consideration. The investments were made in the past and no investment was made during the year, hence no disallowance should be made under section 14A read with rule 8D. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the assessee had debited certain expenses like bank charges, accounting charges etc. which were related to the investment activity of the assessee. 15. As noted above, in the earlier Assessment Year 2007-08, the Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to the extent of bank charges and a....