Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional ground stating that assessee has invested the capital gain on transfer of the agriculture land for purchase of residential house property and, therefore, is entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. It was submitted that assessee has made payment of Rs. 31,91,500/- towards such purchase and has incurred Rs. 1,59,600/- towards stamp duty. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional ground relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) reported in 157 Taxman 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that no new claim can be made except through a valid return of income or a valid revised return of income. He further noted that even on merit also the assessee is not entitled for the claim of deduction u/s 54F as the same transaction for the purchase of plot was not in the name of assessee but was in the name of the wife of the assessee. So far as the addition made by the AO was concerned, he upheld the same.

7. That the appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds."

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) in rejecting the additional ground raised before him and also the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act on account of the land being purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. He submitted that the order of the CIT(A) that no new claim can be made during the appellate proceedings except through valid return of income or a valid revised return of income is not correct in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 349 ITR 336 and various other decisions as per the paper book filed. So far as the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 54F of the Act since the purchase was not made in the name of the assessee but in the name of the wife of the assessee is concerned, he submitted that the entire payments were made out of the bank account of the assessee and, therefore, merely because the property has been purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee, the deduction u/s 54F of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee.