1. 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 u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act can be made to deny exemption u/s 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 u/s 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 AO to pass afresh order after allowing an opportunity
of being heard to the assessee when the statutory provision do not permit calling of the assessee u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act ?
(v) Should the provisions of Section 143(2) not be invoked for seeking information from the assessee when this specific provision exists for
seeking the information from the assessee?
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 u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961. The AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 143 of the Act of 1961 provides that AO can rectify any arithmetical mistakes in the returns, accounts
and documents, referred to in Clause (a) Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 143 provides that the AO may, without requiring the presence of
the assessee or the production by him of any evidence in support of the return, make an assessment of the total income or loss of the assessee after
making such adjustments to the income or loss declared in the return,
4. Admittedly the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 143(1) of the Act.
5. In our view the Tribunal was too liberal in remitting the matter back to the AO for giving opportunity to the assessee. However, the Department
is not in appeal, therefore, we cannot interfere with the order of Tribunal to the extent it is in favour of the assessee.
6. No case is made out for admission of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
