TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. A search action u/s 132 was conducted on 10.11.2017 at the premise of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and Group of cases. During the search, a locker no.315 with State Bank of India, Agra, belonging to the assessee, a salaried employee in M/s Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. was found and seized. The assessee had filed its Return of Income on 29.04.2019 declaring income of Rs. 28,74,220/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that the assessee was a co-owner of Flat No.A202 on 2nd Floor, in Block-A of the building Krishna Apra Saphire, at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. This flat was shown to have been purchased on 12.11.2010 for Rs. 33,63,390/- plus stamp duty of Rs. 2,97,000/- and sold in May, 2017 for Rs. 38 lakhs. The ld. AO noted that considering Circle rate of Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, being 69,800 per sq. mt., the acquisition cost would be Rs. 95,31,608/-. Accordingly, applying provisions of section 50C, he re-worked the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 35,69,776/- and added an amount of Rs. 17,84,888/- being 50% share of assessee. This Long Term Capital Gains was as against Rs. 1,07,967/- disclosed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 8. As regards, the decision of ld. CIT(A) in not accepting the claim of the assessee made under section 54 before the ld. First Appellate Authority is concerned we have noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetz India. He has premised that to claim the impugned benefit, the appellant assessee ought to have made the same in its Return of Income or at least during the course of assessment proceedings. Since, the same was not done therefore in view of decision in the case of Goetze India (supra), the assessee was not entitled to make the claim. The question that thus emerges is whether Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Goetze India would be applicable or not. At this stage it is necessary to examine the ratio laid down by their Lordships in the case of Goetze India Supra reproduced herein below:- ".... The question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995, by the appellant for the assessment year in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the assessee through its Return of Income - original or revised, but made during assessment proceedings, can be made before a Tribunal. The decision thus is that a claim which was not made in the Return of Income can be made, if claimed, before the Tribunal provide the same was made during pendency of some assessment proceedings. It is an admitted facts on record that no claim qua deduction u/s 54 was made by the assessee neither in its Return of Income nor during the assessment proceedings. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze is thus purely distinguished. We, therefore, are of the considered view that there is no case for any interference to the order of the ld. CIT(A) at this stage. All the grounds of appeal on the issue are therefore dismissed. 10. Coming to the issue of decision of Ld. CIT(A) in remitting the issue of the determination of Long Term Capital Gains particularly in the light of provisions of section 50C, we have noted from the discussion in preceding paragraphs that it is an undisputed fact on records that the ld. AO had not responded to the request of ld. CIT(A) to submit a remand report. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has adduce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and adequate opportunity of being heard was denied to the Ld.AO. The present case is classical case where the First Appellate Authority chose to give the Ld.AO an opportunity to defend his order and there was no response from the Ld.AO. Strangely the respective supervisory authorities also did not rise to the occasion of coming in support of a reasonably senior Revenue authority, i.e, CIT(A). 12. We have been compelled to consider this issue as we have noted that the issue of non-submission of remand report from the Ld.AO to the Ld. First Appellate Authority is not an exception but is becoming a rule. The obdurate recalcitrance is on the increase for reasons better known to the assessing officers. In another case heard by undersigned, being Revenue's appeal in ITA No.1762/Chny/, the Ld. CIT(A) languished for seven long years waiting for submission of a remand report and ultimately passed orders over ruling AO's views. Again, in ITA No.1332/Chny/2024, the ld. CIT(A) endlessly waited for submission of remand report before delivering his decision in absence thereof. Ironically, the Revenue had the cheek to contest the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on the premise its principles of natu....