2021 (8) TMI 1266 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s 54F - Denial of natural justice - AR submitted before us by stating that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard - HELD THAT - CIT (A) had posted the case on four occasions. However none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeals ex-parte. In this situation We do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Considering the prayer of the Ld. AR in the interest of justice We hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeals afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath We also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13.
2. Transfer of land and subjecting long term capital gains.
3. Disallowance of claim made by appellant u/s. 54F.
4. Demand raised in A.Y. 2012-13 against sale of the same property.
5. Ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) without proper opportunity to assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13. The grounds raised included errors in the orders contrary to law and facts of the case.

Issue 2:
Regarding the transfer of land and long term capital gains, the appellant argued that the actual possession of the vacant land was given after the demolition of structures and at the time of registering the sale deed. The contention was that the transfer occurred in A.Y. 2012-13, not in A.Y. 2011-12.

Issue 3:
The appellant claimed deduction under section 54F for A.Y. 2012-13 based on the execution of the sale deed and an agreement for acquiring a villa within three years from the date of land transfer. The delay in payment was attributed to the time taken for permission for withdrawal of money.

Issue 4:
It was contended that subjecting LTCG to tax in A.Y. 2011-12 and raising a demand again in A.Y. 2012-13 for the same property was unjustified.

Issue 5:
The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. DR opposed, stating that sufficient opportunities were given, but the assessee did not appear. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate promptly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and participation in the legal proceedings for a fair and just outcome.