NARESHKUMAR P. SOLANKI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(2)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in rejecting the claim of ` 10 lakhs made u/s. 54 of the Act.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The assessee declared income from brokerage in the return of income. The Assessing Officer received AIR information to the effect that the assessee has sold an immovable property for a sum of ` 40 lakhs. It was further noticed that stamp duty valuation of the property was ` 52,46,703/-. Accordingly, the 2 Nareshkumar P Solanki Assessing Officer, computed the capital gain at ` 42,92,605/- and assessed the same. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of an advance of ` 10 lakhs paid towards purchase of a flat. The Assessing Officer rejected the said claim by stating that additional claims can be made only through revised return only, as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 363). In the appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) asked the assessee to furnish the details relating to the payment of advance amount of ` 10 lakhs towards purchase of flat. Learned CIT(A) specifically asked for a copy of bank account of the assessee through which the above said amount of ` 10 lakhs was encashed. However, the assessee did not comply with the said direction and hence learned CIT(A) took the view that the assessee could not prove the claim made by him for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act with necessary evidences. Accordingly, he rejected the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

We noticed that the assessee has not substantiated the claim of deduction of ` 10 lakhs u/s. 54 of the Act by adducing necessary evidences before learned CIT(A). Before us also no fresh material was filed to substantiate the said claim. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the decision rendered by learned CIT(A).

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 15.6.2016.