Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2021 (12) TMI 509

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore us : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that there was a mistake apparent from record duly rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. 4. On the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h a claim in his return of income, the assessee holding a conviction that the omission on his part to claim the aforesaid statutory deduction was in the nature of a mistake apparent from record, rectifiable under Sec. 154 of the Act, thus, moved an application before the A.O under the aforesaid statutory provision. However, the A.O being of the view, that the aforesaid claim for deduction could have only been allowed if the same was raised by the assessee in his original/revised return of income, therefore, vide his order dated 16.02.2017 rejected the application of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O upheld his order and dismis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quential claim for deduction under Sec. 57 (iv) of the Act. As such, the eligibility of an assessee for claim of deduction under the aforesaid statutory provision is not dependent on any documentary evidence/material, but is inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven with the receipt of the interest on compensation or enhanced compensation by him. Now, in the case before us, it is a matter of fact borne from the record, that, the assessee had in his return of income for the year under consideration duly disclosed the interest income that was received by him on the compensation qua acquisition of his agricultural land by the Land Collector, Rohtak. As the assessee had in his return of income duly reflected the interest that was received ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same cannot be declined to him, for the reason, that an alternative remedy is available elsewhere. Be that as it may, we are of a strong conviction that as the A.O remains under a statutory obligation to deduce the 'true income' of an assessee, therefore, the entitlement of the assessee before us towards deduction u/s 57(iv), which is inextricably interwoven or in fact intertwined with the corresponding interest income which had duly been disclosed by him in his return of income, could not have been declined by the A.O on the basis of hyper technical reasons. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1986) 161 ITR 159 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court....