Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 497 - ITAT DELHIBenefit of Section 54F denied - assessee did not substantiate that sale proceeds have been invested in residential property within the stipulated time - contention of the assessee that the land in question is not capital asset as the land is more than 8 km. away from Municipal limit of Sonipat rejected - whether Land sold by assessee was not agricultural land, but, it was a capital asset as per Section 2(14)? - application for admission of the additional evidence was not filed before Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The assessee appeared at the later stage of the assessment proceedings and filed the written submissions, which have been considered by the assessing officer. The assessee produced the valuation report and some other documents at appellate stage, on which, Learned CIT(A), called for the remand report. A.O. as well as the CIT(A) have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Learned Counsel for the Assessee that no proper opportunity have been granted to the assessee at any stage. Assessee submitted that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. At this stage also, Assessee filed copy of the Certificate of Architects dated 4th February, 2019 and some bills of building material, which are not attested and no application have been filed for admission of the additional evidence. No reasons have been explained as to why the same were not produced before the authorities below. Departmental Representative, therefore, rightly contended that the same papers cannot be admitted at this stage, since, no request have been made by assessee for admission of the additional evidences by filing a proper application and no reasons have been explained why these documents were not filed before the authorities below. The Certificate of the Architects dated 4th February, 2019 and bills of building material cannot be taken into consideration. The request of the Assessee to entertain these documents is, therefore, rejected. During the course of arguments Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not point out any error in the Orders of the authorities below that the land sold by the assessee was not capital asset. The assessee also failed to prove that sale proceeds were invested in residential house within the time prescribed under the Law. Therefore, assessee failed to substantiate any of the grounds raised in the present appeal. - Decided against assessee.
|