Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Jai Prakash Tyagi Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 2 (1) (3) , Ghaziabad

2016 (9) TMI 444 - ITAT DELHI

Deduction u/s. 54F - Held that:- In the instant case, when the assessee made a claim before the first appellate authority regarding deduction u/s. 54F for the purpose of determining the capital gain, it was incumbent upon the first appellate authority to make enquiry into the matter or could direct the Assessing Officer to enquire into and to give report on the allowability of such claim in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not exercised its discretionary power .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 736/Del./2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Anurag Jain, C.A. For The Respondent : Sh. V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the assessee agai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

u/s. 54F. Appellant was sick during the course of assessment and could not attend and claim the deduction before AO. Hence deduction u/s. 54F was not allowed by A.O. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee submitted his medical certificate and application u/r 46A of the Income tax Act before CIT(Appeals) and prayed to accept the additional evidence of construction of residential but Hon ble CIT(Appeals) did not accept the additional evidence which is wrong and bad in law. CIT(Appeals) has ment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duction for investment of ₹ 10632000/- u/s. 54F and justice restored. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the notice was issued u/s. 148 on 25.03.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee on 30.03.2013, but the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor filed any return of income in response to said notice. Notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued on 02.08.2013 which was not responded to. Thereafter several notices were issued to the assessee, but the assessee did not bother to appear be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

perty on 16.03.2007 for a consideration of ₹ 3.00 crores, in which the assessee s ½ share comes to ₹ 1.5 crore. The circle rate of the property was ₹ 9,000/- per sq. meter. The plot was measured as 1091.51 sq. meter. The total cost as per circle rate comes to ₹ 98,23,590/- and the assessee s ½ share comes to ₹ 49,11,795/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer calculated longterm capital gains at ₹ 1,88,00,205/- (1,50,00,000 - 49,11,795). The stamp duty wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he same. The assessee submitted a medical certificate which was issued by Kailash Medicare & Research Centre, 13-Prem Enclave, Meerut Road, Opp. DPS, Ghaziabad (U.P.). The assessee produced a valuation report for the construction of a house of ₹ 1,06,32,000/- from the registered valuer for claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidences and upheld the order of Assessing Officer stating that there was no claim made before the Assessing O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

end the action taken u/s. 147/148 of the Act. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified to reject the additional evidences furnished in the shape of medical certificate and valuation report in support of assessee s claim u/s. 54F of the Act. 5. The ld. DR vehemently objected the additional evidences submitted by the ld. AR. He submitted that ample opportunities had been given to the assessee. However, not to speak of furnishing any reply/evidence before the AO, he even did not bothe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

231 ITR 1 and Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the entire material available on record before us. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is based on the stand that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified not to admit the additional evidences laid before him u/r. 46A, as the assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before the AO and the assessee was not aware of the notices .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer; (iii). Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal and (iv). When no sufficient /reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant was given to adduce any relevant evidence by the Assessing Officer at the time of passing the order impugned. 7. Admittedly, the first .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tice u/s. 148 was served upon the assessee on 30.03.2013, as mentioned in the assessment order itself. On this date the assessee was not ill and could appear before the AO, but he did not do so. Not only this, before the date of commencement of assessee s ailment, i.e., 10.01.2014 as certified in medical certificate, 4-5 notices u/s. 142(1) had also been issued to the assessee, but he did not bother to respond. Besides, the assessment order has been finalized on 17.02.2014 and the assessee was r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee has failed to avail any of the opportunity for which no good reason have been assigned before us, as discussed above. We, therefore, hold that exceptions set out in rule 46A of the Act under which the assessee could file the additional evidences, do not stand satisfied in the instant case. 8. However, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid exceptions set out in rule 46A do not deal with the powers of the first appellate authority to make further enquiry or to direct the Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version