TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w-as neither contested as a separate appeal nor was taken as an additional ground of appeal before Ld.CIT(A) by the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law in admitting additional evidence without recording any reasons , thus violating the provisions of Rule 46A(2) and Rule 46 A(3) of the Income Tax Rules ; particularly when the additional documents/evidences were not produced on the directions of the C1T(A) under Rule 46 A(4)? 2. None appeared for the assessee, hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. Facts of the case are that Mr. Munireddy Santhosh Reddy (assessee) is engaged in renting of house properties. Returned income for as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 82,85,000 was correctly claimed under section 54. This fact is acknowledged in the assessment order. 1.3 In the rectification order, the reason given for rectification is that "it is apparent from records that the assessee did not make investment in a residential house, hence it is proposed to disallow the exemption allowed amounting to Rs. 82,50,000 .............. the assessee". This is incorrect as the appellant has complied with the conditions stipulated under section 54 - i.e (a) reinvestment of capital gain in a residential property and (b) construction of residential property within three years from date of transfer. Therefore, it is incorrect to invoke the provisions of section 154 to rectify the assessment order passed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act revoking the already allowed deduction u/s. 54 in respect of three adjacent plots acquired by the appellant for construction of residential house on which residential house had been constructed as supported by various documents including the sanction plan, loan sanction letters from Can-Fin Homes, Union Bank of India and Loan from Citi Bank, Bank statements revealing payment to contractors and property tax receipts etc. furnished by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the once decided issue u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the assessment order thereby allowing the deduction u/s. 54 considering all factual and legal aspects by the Assessing Officer, cannot be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act which is a decided issue. The sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 23/09/2013 and therefore the sale proceeds should have been deposited by the appellant in the Capital Gains Account Scheme for the future utilization within the provisions of section 54F of the Act. There is no dispute that the investment in another plot was made of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 28/11/2015, but since the said amount had not been retained by the appellant in pursuance to the prescribed norm as provided u/s. 54F of the Act, the appellant was not eligible for deduction under the said section. It was also not disputed that the said plot purchased was not adjacent to the other 3 plots for which the appellant also claimed the deduction u/s. 54 / 54F of the Act and which had also been allowed to the appellant in this appellate order. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015-16, wherein held as under: "34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As per CBDT Circular No.7/2018, the Commissioner could condone the delay in filing Form 10 electronically with the department. While entertaining such application, the Commissioner is required to satisfy that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing Form 9A and Form 10 within the stipulated time. But this Circular does not preclude the assessee in filing Form 10 manually before the jurisdictional AO. The assessee is not exempted in filing Form 10 manually by this Circular. It only gives power to the Commissioner to permit the assessee to file Form 10 electronically belatedly. However, in the present case, the asse....