TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission was received by the assessee. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in not giving the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act for investment done by the assessee on account of purchase of residential land and construction done thereon and erred in calculating Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 17,18,348/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing." Ground No. 1 is regarding an addition of Rs. 30,670/- on account of commission received. 2. The assessee is an Individual and proprietor of M/s. Cap-A-Pie Beauty Parlour, Mohali (Punjab). The assessee filed her return of income on 2nd September, 2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by a sum of Rs. 30,670/- on account of commission received. The assessee explained before the AO that since the said amount was offered to tax for the assessment year 2007-08, therefore, it is subjected to double taxation as offered to tax for the year under consideration inadvertently. Therefore, the assessee contended that to rectify the said mistake the assessee has reduced the returned income by Rs. 30,670/- as the said income on account of commission was neither accrued nor received for the year under consideration and it was already offered to tax in the preceding assessment year. The AO added the said amount to the total income of the assessee while passing the impugned assessment order. The assessee raised this issue before the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) as well as decision in case of NTPC vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) and submitted that even if the AO has no jurisdiction to accept the claim of the assessee, there is no bar for the appellate authority to entertain the claim. Thus the ld. Counsel has submitted that the AO is duty bound to assess the correct income to tax and shall not take the advantage of any mistake committed by the assessee in offering wrong income to tax. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has declared this income in the return of income filed under section 139 and, therefore, except the revised return of income, the assessee is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, once this fact of inadvertent mistake to offer the said income to tax was brought to the notice of the AO, the AO was under obligation to take the necessary steps under section 154 to correct the said mistake in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. Since it is not a claim of deduction made by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148, therefore, it would not amount to claim any benefit in the said return which was not claimed in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act but it is only a rectification of a bonafide mistake and, therefore, the AO was required to assess only the correct income for the year under consideration and not to take the advantage of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has purchased the residential plot of land at Mohali as well as an agreement entered into with the Developer who has constructed the house. The assessee has also produced the Valuation Report in support of the cost of construction. Therefore, the assessee has established the claim of construction of house within the period stipulated under section 54 of the Act. The ld. Counsel has also referred the return of income and the computation of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act and submitted that the assessee has given all these details of purchase of plot of land and construction of house at the time of filing of original return of income. Therefore, the denial of the claim by the AO by doubting the construction of the house without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the course of argument, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the assessee has withdrawn the cash of Rs. 7,00,000/- on 30th January, 2008 and further an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 2nd February, 2008. He has referred to the bank account of the assessee with Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar. From the details of the bank account, it is clear that there is an withdrawal by the assessee of Rs. 8,00,000/- on two days and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- withdrawn by the assessee from her bank account clearly explained the cost of construction of house incurred by the assessee. Thus the said ground of the AO is contrary to the record and fact that the assessee has duly withdrawn the cash from the bank to meet the cons....