TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income including Long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 20,64,755/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it turned out that that stamp duty value of the sold property was more by an amount of Rs. 5,48,796/- from the declared sale value. Similarly, the assessee had acquired a residential house on 20-07-2010 for Rs. 1.30 crores, which was eligible for deduction u/s 54Fof the Act; however due to inadvertence it was not claimed by her in the return of income. The assessee by letter dated 08-02-2013 filed a revised computation making these corrections. The AO framed the assessment on 19-02-2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act allowing the corrections. It may be pertinent to mention that in the order except a reference about a letter o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Ld. A.R. relied on various court decisions to argue that benevolent circular of the Board is binding on the Assessing Officer. Hence, the deduction u/s 54F allowed by the AO on the basis of revised computation of income filed during the assessment proceedings was in accordance with the Board's Circular and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He, therefore, requested to drop the proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act. 2.4 The ld. CIT rejected assessee's explanation by following observations. ''3.1 I have duly considered the submission of the assessee and material available on record. It is evident from records that AO issued a show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and non-application of correct provisions of law and the decision of Apex Court by the AO itself makes his assessment order as erroneous. Allowing the deduction u/s 54F without assessee filing the revised return of income has made the order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Has categorically held that the Assessing Officer has no power to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise through a revised return. Hence, AO has exceeded his jurisdiction and power in allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act in the absence of a revised return filed by the assessee. 3.2 The reliance of Ld. AR on the Board's Circular dated 11.04.1955 and various case laws is misplaced. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (i) The AO has referred to filing of revised computation. (ii) M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. case lays a proposition that assessee can make a new claim only by revised return. The assessee has demonstrated its difficulty that revised return was not accepted and there was no way left except to file the revised computation before the AO. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) debars the AO from a examining a new claim inasmuch as the issue of capital gain and withdrawal of Rs. 1.30 crors emerged from the record before him. The Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) lays down that the assessee cannot claim as a matter of right if the claim is rejected by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, not a word of observation has been mentioned by the AO in his order regarding the merits of eligibility of claim u/s 54F qua the acquisition of house property of Rs. 1.30 crores to be set off Long term capital gain offered by the assessee Thus the order of the AO is erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on these three counts, therefore, ld. CIT properly exercising his statutory power u/s 263 revised the order in a justifiable manner which deserves to be upheld. 2.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is a settled law that income tax assessment shall be fair and reasonable; the valid claim which are due to the assessee should be allowed to it. However hon'ble A....