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

ITA 1884/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3156 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINITA MENON
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1884 /MUM/ 20 13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0 ) NARESHKUMAR P SOLANKI B - 202, RIDHISIDHI APT. 5 TH ROAD, CHEMBUR MUMBAI - 400 074. VS. ITO WARD 22(2)(3) VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, TOWER 6 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI - 400705. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AGTPS0271G ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY S MT.VINITA MENON DATE OF HEARING 15 . 6. 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 . 6 . 201 6 O R D E R P ER B.R. BASKARAN, A M : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 3 3 , MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 200 9 - 10 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE C LAIM OF ` 10 LAKHS MADE U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. 3 . 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 AS SESSEE. 4. 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 A IR INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABL E PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF ` 40 LAKHS. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ` 52,46,703/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE NARESHKUMAR P SOLANKI 2 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 D ECISION 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 FLA T. 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 ASS ESSEE 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. 5. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT S UBSTANTIATED 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). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 . 6 .2016 . SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 5 / 6/ 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT NARESHKUMAR P SOLANKI 3 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS