| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2775 2008 SLD 2775 (2008) 296 ITR 287 |
Rajasthan High Court
D.B. IT APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2005 OCTOBER 25, 2005
S.N., JHA, C.J. AND Y. R. MEENA, J.
Sanjay Jhanwar for the Appellant.
D.B. IT APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2005 OCTOBER 25, 2005
S.N., JHA, C.J. AND Y. R. MEENA, J.
Sanjay Jhanwar for the Appellant.
Usha Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax
Law:
Section:
Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house When no document is annexed in support of claim for exemption, mere claim of exemption under section 54F could not be allowed Where the assessee had claimed deduction under section 54F without annexing any documents in support of the claim. Held that when no document was annexed in support of the claim for deduction, mere claim of deduction under section 54F could not be allowed. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to accept whatever assessee says without proper evidence in support of that claim. If there is mere claim without support by the documents in favour of that claim, the Assessing Officer has no power to adjust that income or deduction, as provided under the Act. If the view is taken that even without any evidence or document annexed with the return the claim of assessee for any deduction is to be allowed, there is no purpose of even filing the returns or sending the intimation to the assessee under section 143(1). Therefore, the assessee's claim of exemption under section 54F could not be allowed. JUDGMENT The following questions have been raised in this appeal : "(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not perverse, contrary to the facts and material available on record and ex facie illegal ? (ii) Whether prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act can be made to deny exemption under section 54F of the Act, for want of enclosure of the proof to the return of income ? (iii) Whether an exemption can be considered to be prima facie inadmissible for want of proof under section 143(1)(a) on the basis of return of income enclosed to the return where there is no statutory requirement of enclosure of proof to the return of income? (iv) Whether, learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the matter by giving a direction to Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee when the statutory provision do not permit calling of the assessee under section 143(1)(a) of the Act ? (v) Should the provisions ofโฆ
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492