2022 (5) TMI 1008

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal pending before it against the order dated 29.12.2017 of Assessing officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -56 (1), New Delhi. Assessee has also filed Cross Objection No. 136/Del/2019. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who claimed he was residing for the last so many years with his family in the residential H. No. C-228, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi- 110092 (which is owned by assessee's wife- Smt. Meena Taneja) He had filed his ITR for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 1,17,42,240/- as under :- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from Salary Director's remuneration from M/s Shanker Foundry India 18,00,000/- Income from House Properties 87,10,620/- Income from Other Sour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the Tribunal the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and not in consonance with facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs. 5,64,89,310/- made by AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the claim of Rs. 5,64,89,310/- under section 54F of the IT, Act, 1961 is not proper and is inadmissible. 4. The appellant craves, leave to add, allow or amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of section 54 of Act. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to take into consideration the arguments and in a summary manner dismissed this ground of appeal. 5.2 The revenue defended this finding of Ld. CIT(A) submitting that the mandate was to examine the deduction claimed for capital gain and no prejudice was caused to the assessee if sections other than mentioned in limited scrutiny was invoked. 6. Thus it is appropriate to take up the ground no. 1 and 2 of the cross objections prior for determination. Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny but the Ld. Assessing officer has not discussed a word about the original reasons for selection of the case....