2024 (8) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27-12-2018. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -15, Chennai dated 18.10.2019 in I.T.A. No. 98/CIT(A)-15/2018-19, for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act pertaining to the reinvestment in the name of the appellant's wife without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that having complied with the conditions prescribed for making the claim for exemption/deduction u/s 54F of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 7. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case reported in 407 ITR 1 would fortify the stand of the Appellant thereby vitiating the related findings at Para 6.5 of the impugned order. 8. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is nullity in law. As is evident, the sole issue that fall for our consideration is to determine assessee's' eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee and relied on various judi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same could not find favor with Ld. AO who referred to the decision of Chennai Tribunal in D. Devadass (ITA No. 2047/Mds/2015 dated 07-04-2016) while arriving at such a conclusion. In this case law, such deduction was denied since the investment was made by the assessee in the name of unmarried daughter. Finally, the impugned deduction was denied to the assessee and an assessment was framed raising certain demand against the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) concurred with the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. We find that basic facts and relevant dates are not in dispute. The assessee fulfills all the other eligibility conditions to claim the deduction u/s 54F except for th....