Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in 16 dated 31.01.2017.
:- 2 -: ITA No.766/Mds/2017
Shri P.K. Mohammed, an individual, is engaged in the business of civil and structural contract. While completing the assessment for assessment year 2010- 11, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54G at Rs. 1,67,95,113/- on the capital gains which arose from the sale of industrial shed and building at Ambattur. Further, he disallowed the additional depreciation claimed on the plant and machinery at Rs. 1,11,733/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-7, Chennai. During the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee filed an additional ground for claim of exemption u/s. 54F in respect of impugned long term capital gains which was not claimed at the time of filing return. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal on the grounds that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming; denial of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s. 54G, the disallowance made by the AO of additional depreciation on plant and machinery and in not admitting the additional ground filed by the assessee for fresh claim of exemption u/s. 54F. Relying on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court order in the case of CIT Vs Abhinitha Foundation Pvt Ltd in TC(A) No. 811 of 2016 dated 06.06.2017, the AR sought the relief. Per contra, the DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions. The relevant portion of the order from the TC(A) No. 811 of 2016 is extracted as under:
“ 18. In sum, what emerges from a perusal of the ratio of the judgements cited above, in particular, the judgments rendered by the :- 3 -: ITA No.766/Mds/2017
Supreme Court in GOETZE’s case and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.’s case, and those, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ramco Cements Ltd. And CIT Vs Malind Laboratories P. Ltd., as also the judgements of the Delhi High Court in Sam Global Securities Ltd.’s case and Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.’s case, that, even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal) by themselves, or on remand, by the Assessing Officer.” relying on the above ratios, the CIT(A) order is set aside and the issue is remitted back to the AO for re-examination and appropriate decision as to whether the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction u/s. 54F, after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The AR has not pressed the ground with regard to the disallowance of additional depreciation claim and hence it is endorsed.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Monday, the 19th day of June, 2017 at Chennai.