TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in upholding an addition of Rs. 25,59,170- made by the Assessing Officer as Short term capital gains arising on assets subjected to Section 50 was not allowed for deduction u/s. 54F on the grounds that the assessee had failed to furnish the deduction claims in the Return of Income filed by the assessee. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in merely echoing the view of the AO without appreciating the submissions of the Appellant that the claim of additional deduction can be admitted by the appellate authority where the assessee has failed to furnish the claim of deduction in the return of income filed either u/s. 139(1) or 139(4) of Income Tax Act-1961. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee filed letter dated 12/04/2016 stating the original return filed to be treated as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued in response to which the representatives of assessee attended and furnished details as required. 2.3. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the proprietor of M/s. J. N. Jewellers, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of imitation jewellery. It was further noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had disclosed income under the heads "Income from Business" and "Income from Other Sources." 2.4. It was observed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property, namel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act had not been made in the return of income originally filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld.AO did not allow the said claim. 2.8. The Ld.AO further rejected the assessee's contention regarding addition of the new property to the block of assets and held that the gains arising from the sale of the asset were required to be taxed as short-term capital gains, on the ground that the block of assets had ceased to exist. The Ld.AO, therefore, computed the short-term capital gain on the sale of the depreciable asset and made an addition of Rs. 25,59,170/-, as detailed hereunder: Sale Proceeds: Rs.35,00,000 Less: WDV: Rs. 9,40,830 Short Term Capital Gain: Rs. 25,59,170 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... report confirms that the claim u/s. 54F was not part of the return of income. • No admissible additional evidence has been produced under Rule 46A. • The addition of Rs. 25,59,170 as short-term capital gains is legally correct." Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before us. 4. Admittedly, the claim for deduction under section 54F in respect of depreciable assets could not have been examined by the Ld.AO, as the same did not form part of the return of income filed by the assessee. Even before the Ld.CIT(A), such a claim could not have been entertained or verified, having regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he claim at the appellate stage. As clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra), the restriction laid down therein applies only to the powers of the assessing officer and does not curtail the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain a legal claim and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. 4.3. It is further noted that the assessee has placed reliance placed by the assesse on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.(supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), lay down that, exemption under sections 54E/54F is available even in respect of capital gains arising from depreciable assets. However, the factual condition....