USHA GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING questions have been raised in this appeal:

(2.) THE short controversy involved is whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter back to the AO to place on record the material evidence for claiming benefit provided under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961. The AO denied the benefit of deduction under Section 54F to the assessee on the ground that no evidence had been annexed along with the returns. Against that order appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT (A). CIT (A) after considering the documents placed before him regarding benefit under Section 54F of the Act found that the assessee is not full owner of the property in question and she had not attached those documents along with returns and as such no benefit can be granted. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal though agreed that in absence of the evidence, benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the Act cannot be allowed, but remitted the matter back to the AO to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh order.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act without annexing any documents in support of the claim. When no document is annexed in support of the claim for deduction, mere claim of deduction under Section 54F cannot 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 AO 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) of the Act.