TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asst. year 1996-97. "2. That the said appeal is being filed by me out of the date specified u/s 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and I have this day made an application u/s 253 (5) of the Act seeking condonation of delay caused; 3. That the delay in filing the said appeal is due to the following reasons: a. The said assessment was challenged on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 7, Bengaluru who by his order dated 2.9.2016 in ITA No.298/CIT(A)-7/BR/2014-15, dismissed the Appellant's appeal on ground that as against the appellant's right to get deduction of Rs. 74,80,000/- u/s 54 the AD has accepted the amount of exemption to the extent of Rs. 77,50,000/- with a finding of fact that the same is the exemption sought in the return of income filed by the appellant; b. The said finding of fact and the said Appellate Order being erroneous, the Appellant on being advised, sought rectification of mistake u/s 154(2)(b) of the Act vide his application filed on 7.11.2016 before the First Appellate Authority with the belief and hope that the First Appellate Authority will grant the sought relief at the earliest. Though the Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee purchased another property using the very same amount. The assessee filed an appeal challenging the AO's rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 30/3/3001, which was dismissed by the ld CIT(A). On further appeal by the assessee, the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Bangalore Bench vide order in ITA No.22/Bang/2004 dated 7/1/2006 allowing the assessee partial relief of Rs. 6,67,493/- after accepting the calculation of proportionate amount which bears the same ratio as the cost of new asset bears to the net consideration as per section 54F of the Act. The assessee filed an M.P No.48/Bang/2006 in respect of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal (Supra), which was disposed vide order dated 2/5/2006. In its order in the M.P No.48/Bang/2006, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous petition and thereby rejected the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54 instead of sec. 54F of the Act on the ground that it was the assessee himself who claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act, which was accepted by the AO and not challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed against the said order of assessment. 3.2 Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal for asst. year 1996-97 dated 7/1/2006 and 2/5/2006, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Fathima Bai vs. Income Tax Officer reported in (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243 with respect of deposit of Rs. 17,40,000/- in the capital gain account scheme as to whether it is within the stipulated period, The AO shall consider the claim of the assessee for deductions u/s 54 as required under law." 3.4 Subsequent to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the AO once again completed the order of assessment for asst. year 1996-97 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 260A of the Act vide order dated 27/3/2014 by accepting the income of Rs. 91,18,563/- as returned by the assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. On appeal, the CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dated 2/9/2016 for asst. year 1996-97. 4.0 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated 2/9/2016 for asst. year 1996-97, the assessee has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds:- "1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Bengaluru and that of the Assessing Officer are liable to set aside in so far as they incorrect, improper, irregular, opposed to facts and circumstances of the case, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 260A of the Act vide order dated 27/3/2014 reads as under:- "ASSESSMENT ORDER The assessee has filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 1996-97 on 30.08.1996 declaring an income of Rs. 91,18,5681-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 17.02.1999 by accepting the return of income filed. Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessee has mode a wrong claim of Rs. 20,00,0001- u/s. 54(2) of the I. T. Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 154 was issued on 14.08.2000 and the order u/s. 143(3) was modified on 30.03.2001 by adding the wrong claim made by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 154, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee's appeal. Further to this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ITAT, where the ITAT has partially allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the ITAT, the assessee preferred an appeal before the High court, who in turn allowed The assessee 's appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of allowing deduction of u/s. 54 ....