2021 (10) TMI 1091

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal ex parte of the assessee after hearing the ld. DR. 3. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT noted from the assessment records that the assessee had shown long term capital gain of Rs. 1,21,76,044/- after claiming deduction u/s 54EC and u/s 54F of the I.T. Act at Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 1,15,27,551/- respectively. The claim of cost of improvement to the property in respect of some of the items was disallowed by the Assessing officer and the long-term capital gain was recomputed at Rs. 3,17,51,644/-. The deduction u/s 54ECand 54F of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause notice, the assessee explained that the due date of the filing of the return was extended by the CBDT and that the new investment was made before the due date of the filing of the return. Therefore, the claim was allowable u/s 54F of the Act. It was further submitted that all the details including bills and vouchers etc. relating to the investment were duly submitted before the Assessing Officer and that the Assessing Officer after due verification of the evidence relating to the investments made has rightly allowed the claim. 7. The ld. CIT however observed from the record the bills/receipts relating to below mentioned n items were not produced: SI No. Vendor Description Date Amount (Rs.) Supporting Receipts 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has come in appeal before us. 10. The ld. DR has contended that the order of the CIT is well-explained order and that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the bills/vouchers/receipts relating to the investments made by the assessee in a new flat to claim deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. 11. However, a perusal of the impugned order of the CIT reveals that after thoroughly examining the details and evidences furnished by the assessee during the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, the Ld. CIT could not point out much discrepancy except about some small payments on account of small improvements such as bath room door, balcony grill, geysers, painter etc. totalling to Rs. 2,01,250/-....