REJESHRI OMPRAKASH MALVIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4(1)(3)), AHMEDABAD

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.10(37) of the Act of Rs.1,27,21.724/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer, when no such disallowance is called for. Assessment Year: 2014-15 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the additional evidence application duly filed by assessee under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.”

The assessee filed return of income on 25.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,89,963/- for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 28.08.2015. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03.11.2015 was issued and in response to these notices, the assessee’s AR attended the assessment proceedings and filed written submission. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of “large deduction claimed under Section 54B, 54C, 54D 54G & 54GA of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,27,21,724/- on sale of land at Ratanpur and claimed the entire capital gain as exempt under Section 54G of the Act. The assessee was called upon to furnish various details but the assessee did not make any compliance. On 09.07.2016, the assessee’s Written Submission was taken on record and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,27,21,724/- in respect of income from capital gain thereby disallowing deduction/exemption under Section 54G/10(37) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Adjournment Application filed by the Ld. AR is rejected. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the additional evidences filed before the CIT(A) only on the ground that the assessee has not given any satisfying and logical explanation despite filing the evidences before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has the notification dated 15.03.2012 as well as the certificate from the Talati of Ratanpur Village certifying that the land was used for agricultural purpose, along with Sale Deed which was submitted as additional evidence before the CIT(A) which has not been considered. the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be set aside Assessment Year: 2014-15 PBN/*