Bimla Devi D. Shah , Mumbai vs Assessee

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई यायपीठ "डी " मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL" D" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) सव ी बी.आर.बा करन, लेखा सद य एवं अ मत शु ला, या यक सद य के सम

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5058/Mum/2010 ( नधारण वष / Assessment Year :2006-07)

Smt.Bimla Devi D Shah, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 24(1)(3), 301, Jain Apartment, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mamledar Wadi, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)

थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. :AYSPS6957Q

अपीलाथ ओर से / Assessees by Ms. Shloka Jain यथ क ओर से/Revenue by Shri S J Singh

सुनवाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 26.3.2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.3.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM)

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2006-07.

2. The assessee is challenging the validity of the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(theAct).

3. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessment order in the instant case was passed by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15.2.2008. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax 2 I . T . A . N o . 5 0 5 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 0

noticed that the assessee sold a property for a total consideration of Rs.18.25 lakhs on 24.3.2006 and the capital gain arising there from was declared as NIL in the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for the details of "Long Term Capital Gains", but did not examine the claim for exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. The Commissioner noticed that the assessee had claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act in respect of three different flats purchased on 19.5.2002, 15.3.2005 and 30.9.2004. Since, there was no discussion in the assessment order nor did the AO make any inquiry with regard to exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act, the Commissioner initiated revision proceeding under section 263 of the Act. After hearing the assessee, he set aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to make fresh assessment by duly verifying all relevant facts and also after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

4. From the order of the Assessing Officer and the paper book filed by the assessee, we notice that the AO has failed to examine the claim for deduction under section 54 of the Act made by the assessee. Even in the return of income filed, the assessee did not specifically mention that she is claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Since, there is no inquiry at all on the part of the AO with regard to the claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act, we are of the view that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We find support for this proposition from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Malabar hills Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC). Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee and dismiss the same.

3 I . T . A . N o . 5 0 5 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 0

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The above order was pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2015.

घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म दनांकः 26th March, 2015 को क गई ।

Sd sd (अ मत शु ला / AMIT SHUKLA) (बी.आर.बा करन / B.R. BASKARAN) या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

मंब ु ई Mumbai: 26th March,2015.

व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS

आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned

4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, True copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई /ITAT, Mumbai