TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the advance tax payable by her. Therefore, she ought to have filed an application under the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act for exemption from the application of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. In such circumstances, The CIT (A) had no choice but to dismiss the appeal as it was defective. Purely in the interest of justice and taking the prayer of the assessee into consideration, we set aside the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to the assessee to file the application under the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, the CIT (A) shall dispose of such application of the assessee and decide on the issue of exemption from the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as found that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the relevant A.Y declaring capital gains on the consideration received towards her share (50%) as per the joint development agreement, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and after examining the assessee s contention about the exemption u/s 54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that since the assessee has not filed her return of income for the relevant A.Y and has not claimed the exemption u/s 54F of the Act, the same is not allowable to the assessee. He accordingly computed the long term capital gain of Rs.56,62,800/- and brought it to tax. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) observed that the assessee has not file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer wrongly worked out the capital gain; did not allow the amount of deduction claimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and if the Assessing officer had correctly worked out the income there would not have been any tax payable. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing . 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that before dismissing the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable, the CIT (A) ought to have given the assessee an opportunity to explain her case. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal may be set aside to the file of the CIT (A) for re-adjudication of the issues of both the applicability of the provisions of section 249(4)(b) and also on merits of the addition. 6. The learned DR, however, relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
