AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cs only) and Ld. ITO 1(3) Ghaziabad has determined LTCG of Rs. 10088205/-. 3. Appellant has constructed a residential house by investing Rs. 10632000/- before 31.03.08 and was entitled for deduction u/s. 54F. Appellant was sick during the course of assessment and could not attend and claim the deduction before AO. Hence deduction u/s. 54F was not allowed by A.O. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee submitted his medical certificate and application u/r 46A of the Income tax Act before CIT(Appeals) and prayed to accept the additional evidence of construction of residential but Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) did not accept the additional evidence which is wrong and bad in law. CIT(Appeals) has mentioned in his order [page 4 para 1) that addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 crores, in which the assessee's ½ share comes to Rs. 1.5 crore. The circle rate of the property was Rs. 9,000/- per sq. meter. The plot was measured as 1091.51 sq. meter. The total cost as per circle rate comes to Rs. 98,23,590/- and the assessee's ½ share comes to Rs. 49,11,795/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer calculated longterm capital gains at Rs. 1,88,00,205/- (1,50,00,000 - 49,11,795). The stamp duty was paid by the assessee for Rs. 30 lacs on the sale consideration of the above property. The Assessing Officer did not give deduction of stamp duty paid by the assessee on the sale consideration of the above property as provided u/s. 48(i) of the IT Act, 1961 and determined the capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AR. He submitted that ample opportunities had been given to the assessee. However, not to speak of furnishing any reply/evidence before the AO, he even did not bother to appear before the AO in compliance to various statutory notice issued by AO. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified to reject the additional evidences submitted as noted above, as the assessee did not fulfill the conditions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. It was submitted that several notices were served upon the assessee, hence, the stand of assessee about unawareness of such notices is not believable. Reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabha Vati vs. CIT, 231 ITR 1 and Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessee regarding other three conditions is also not acceptable as we do not find any reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to appear and adduce the evidence before the AO. The assessee has laid emphasis on the medical certificate placed before the first appellate authority copy of which is also placed before us. This certificate certifies the ailment of assessee from 10.01.2014 to 10.02.2014, whereas the notice u/s. 148 was served upon the assessee on 30.03.2013, as mentioned in the assessment order itself. On this date the assessee was not ill and could appear before the AO, but he did not do so. Not only this, before the date of commencement of assessee's ailment, i.e., 10.01.2014 as certified in medical certificate, 4-5 notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first appellate authority is legally empowered to make any enquiry as he thinks fit as contemplated u/s. 250(4) of the Act. As held in various judicial pronouncements, the scope of powers of first appellate authority is coterminous with that of the Income tax Officer and he can do what the Income-tax Officer can do. In the instant case, when the assessee made a claim before the first appellate authority regarding deduction u/s. 54F for the purpose of determining the capital gain, it was incumbent upon the first appellate authority to make enquiry into the matter or could direct the Assessing Officer to enquire into and to give report on the allowability of such claim in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the ld. CIT(A) has n....