VISHWAJIT C. CHINDARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22 (2)(2), MUMBAI

Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, he filed his return of income on 15th October 2010, declaring total income of ` 7,12,499. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on verifying the return of income filed by the assessee noticed that in the year under consideration, the 2 Vishwajit C. Chindarkar assessee has sold a flat for ` 19 lakh and has claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act for an amount of ` 2,01,000, towards investment in a new flat. Alleging that the assessee till date has neither received possession of the flat nor has executed a registered sale deed, the Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer disallowed ` 15,000, on purely ad–hoc basis being expenditure claimed towards transport charges. The assessee challenged the aforesaid disallowances before the first appellate authority. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

I have heard the assessee appearing in person and the learned Departmental Representative. The assessee submitted that due to his financial condition, he could not engage a Counsel before the first appellate authority for which the appeal was decided ex–parte. Therefore, he requested for an opportunity to represent his case before the first appellate authority. Having considered rival submissions, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate his claim regarding deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act as well as transportation charges by filing supporting evidences. For enabling

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28/01/2021