TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or A.Y. 202021, dated 28.01.2026 as per the directions of the Learned CIT (DRP)-1, Bengaluru-2 ("Ld. DRP") dated 27.12.2025. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld.AO u/s.147 r.w.s 144C(13) is erroneous and contrary to the law and is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld.AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 49,28,000/- as income of the assessee under Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.AO/DRP erred in not allowing the assessee's claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act solely on the ground that the same was not claimed in the Return of Income. 4. The LD.AO/DRP ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act dated 15.03.2025, proposing an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- towards short-term capital gain arising from the transfer of the immovable property and determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,00,03,130/-. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP issued directions under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 27.12.2025, pursuant to which the capital gain arising from the transfer of the immovable property was determined as longterm capital gain of Rs. 49,25,389/- instead of short-term capital gain of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as proposed in the draft assessment order. Pursuant to the direction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had not filed the original return of income under section 139 of the Act and had not claimed the exemption in the return of income. The Ld. AR, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC), submitted that a claim which was not made before the Assessing Officer can nevertheless be raised before the appellate authority. He further submitted that the restriction contemplated by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) operates in respect of the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a fresh claim otherwise than by way of a revised return and does not curtail the powers of the appellate authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g our consideration is whether the assessee can raise a claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act when such claim was not made in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act or before the Assessing Officer but was raised for the first time before the Ld. DRP. 8. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) considered the question whether an assessee could make a claim for deduction before the Assessing Officer otherwise than by filing a revised return. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer could not entertain such a claim otherwise than by way of a revised return. However, while deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DRP. Merely because the assessee had initially disputed the taxability of the capital gain cannot, by itself, preclude the assessee from making an alternative claim for a statutory deduction when such capital gain is ultimately brought to tax. In the present case, the assessee had raised the claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act before the Ld. DRP, but the same was not examined on merits and was rejected at the threshold on account of the assessee having not made such claim in the return of income. Without going into the question regarding the extent of the power of the Ld. DRP to entertain such an additional claim, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has the power to entertain the said claim in view of the princi....