RAJARAM NANASAHEB SATAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23.08.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of running a hotel. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,93,600/- and the said return of income was revised on 28.03.2017 at a loss of Rs.5,11,671/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(4), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 26.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.1,30,22,060/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of Rs.91,60,000/- u/s 54B of the Act. The Assessing Officer also denied the claim for exemption u/s 54F for want of proof of investments etc not supported by the purchase deed, but mere a MOU. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that in respect of said claim for exemption u/s 54F, the appellant could not furnish any supporting evidence in respect of expenditure incurred on the construction of residential bungalow at Gat No.1185, Wagholi, Pune and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer denied the same. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction u/s 54B to the extent of that the lands were purchased through registered agreements. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing on several times. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and perusing the material on record.