2019 (1) TMI 1202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....moved for adjournment. However, because of the issue involved, we proceed to decide the present appeal after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has: 1. Erred in confirming the cost of acquisition of the land sold by the Appellant as on 1/4/1981 at Rs. 10,360/- as against Rs. 3,59,648/- claimed by the Appellant. 2. Erred in confirming the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act at Rs. 33,48,003/- as against Rs. 45,41,736/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Erred in passing the ex-parte order by not granting the Appellant sufficient opportunit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f which an amount of Rs. 33,85,130/- has been claimed as deduction under section 54 of the Act by the assessee and the balance has been claimed as deduction under section 54F of the Act by his wife. Further, the assessee had also claimed deduction of Rs. 11,56,606/- under section 54F of the Act on account of investment made in a specified bank/institution. Thus, the total deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act by the assessee was at Rs. 45,41,736/-. However, the Assessing Officer on verification of the details submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that the entire claim made by assessee could not be allowed in view of the provisions of section 54F(1)(b) and 54F(4) of the Act and the proviso thereof. In the inst....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the aforesaid account on 24.07.2014 i.e. more than one year beyond the due date for furnishing the return. Thus, the authorities below held that the deduction claimed in respect of this amount could not be allowed. 9. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 10. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of assessee. However, we find that the issue stands covered against the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bom.). 11. Further, the said proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT (supra) has been applied by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal (where Judicial Member is a p....