SYEDA MARIAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4), BENGALURU
In the result we accepted the legal issue and held that the assessment order dated 30
ITA 341/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Syeda Mariam The Income Tax Officer No. 482, 14Th Main Ward - 3(1)(4) Koramangala 3Rd Block Vs. Bmtc Building, 80Ft. Road Bangalore 560034 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Aazpm2737P Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru Dated 28.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 28.07.2014. Thereafter A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted At The Company M/S. Intact Developers P. Ltd., In Which The Assessee Is A Director & Based On The Survey It Was Found That The Assessee Had Lent Unsecured Loans To The Company & In Support Of The Unsecured Loans The Assessee Filed Confirmation Letters From The Company. Insofar As The Source For The Loan, The Assessee Submitted That She Got Capital Gain In Ays 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Out Of This She Offered Loans To The Company. The Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) Verified The Details Filed By The Assessee & Came To The Conclusion That There
For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 54Section 548Section 54B
548 of the Act and the Ld.
CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.
5
The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the capital gains were reinvested in agricultural land in satisfaction of conditions laid down in section 54B of the IT Act.
6
Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO erred
