TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. Mehaan Infrastructure. The assessee sold an immovable property as a co-owner and received his 30% share of Rs. 1.8 crores and claimed deduction u/s. 54EC of Rs. 50,00,000/- and deduction u/s. 54F of Rs. 36,27,254/-. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction as the assessee filed the Return of Income belatedly on 24-03-2017 and belatedly filed the Revised the Return of Income. Thus the Ld. A.O. making an addition of Rs. 86,27,254/- by disallowing the claim of deductions u/s. 54EC and u/s. 54F and demanded tax thereon. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal against that assessment order which was partly allowed. It is thereafter the Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ful consideration and perused the materials available on record. In fact the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal set aside the assessment with the direction to the A.O. to allow the claim of investment/deposit done on or before 31-07- 2016 and proportionately allow the claim of deduction u/s. 54F and u/s. 54EC by observing as follows: "I have carefully gone through the case laws (supra) and feel that the appellate authorities have full power to entertain the claim which is valid in law and which was not made before the AO as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders 349 ITR 336. The head note of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity- "S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(A) was entertained. Similar view has also been taken by the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in its unreported decision in CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. [TAX APPEAL/1407/2011-ORDER DATED 05/07/2012]. The attention of the court was also invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323). It has been held by the honourable High Court that the decision of honourable Supreme Court was not a bar on the power of the first Appellate Authority to allow a legitimate claim of the assessee even if he had not filed a revised return for making that claim. It is emphasized that it is not the case wherein all investment into new property/capital gain account/REC Bond has been done beyond stipulated timeframe. In fa....