AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as well as the jurisprudence. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not awarding the benefit of section 54. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) in true letter & spirit. (B) In this case the assessment order dated 07/12/2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, (IT Act for short), whereby the assessee's total income was determined at Rs.1,24,32,260/- as against the returned income of Rs.19,42,360/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.1,05,00,000/- was made by rejecting the assessee's claim u/s 54/54F of IT Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roneously u/s 54F of Act instead of claiming the benefit u/s 54 of Act which was the correct section under which the assessee was eligible for benefit, and made the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,05,00,000/-. (B.1) Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 28/02/203, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The learned CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee could not amend return filed by the assessee for making a new claim for deduction. Aggrieved again, the assessee has filed appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee filed a letter dated 12th April, 2023 stating as under: "As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration of Rs.1,05,00,000/- against the market value of Rs.74,10,080/- on 10.03.2016 and further invested Rs.1,06,00,000/- in Flat No.103, Imperial Block Eldeco Green Apartments, Lucknow for which sale deed was executed on 30/03/2016. Hence, assessee has sold a residential house & invested the amount in purchase of residential flat." (C.1.1) Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has not made any new claim u/s 54 of Act and instead, the assessee had already made the claim in the return of income. He submitted further that no adverse view should be taken against the assessee for bonafide and inadvertent typographical mistake made in the return of income wherein the claim was erroneously made u/s 54F instea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018] 96 taxmann.com 498 (Kerala) "In the facts and circumstances of this case we hence answer the first question of law framed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue that there could have been a deduction considered under Section 80G, by the Assessing Officer without a revised return being filed since the claim for deduction was made; but under a wrong provision. The necessary facts for a claim to be set up was available in the return." (Quoted) (iv) Income Tax Officer Vs. Armine Hamied ITAT MUMBAI "T" BENCH, MUMBAI "Here is a case in which a claim for exemption was rightly made, but only a wrong section was quoted while making a claim, which is qualitatively different from was no fresh claim was such In our considered view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim of the assessee made during appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and earlier during the assessment proceedings that the assessee was eligible for benefit u/s 54 of the IT Act has not been disputed on facts having regard to the transactions made by the assessee. Neither assessment order nor the learned CIT(A), in their respective orders, have taken the view that on merits the assessee was not eligible for benefit u/s 54 of the IT Act. On perusal of records, we find no materials to suggest that on merits, the assessee was not eligible for benefit u/s 54 of IT Act. It is not even the case of Revenue that on merits the assessee is not eligible for benefit u/s 54 of IT Act. The assessee's claim u/s 54 of IT Act was not allowed....