9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That under the facts and law, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in denying exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 53,86,108/- claimed by the Appellant in respect of Investment made in House Property. Prayed that the Capital gain exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 53,86,108/- be allowed. 3. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 23.02.2015 showing a total income of Rs. 8,93,920/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under "CASS" and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued. In response to the said notices counsel of the assessee attended assessment proceedings from time to time wherein the case was discussed, and written submissions filed by the counsel are placed on record. The Assessee is a partner in the firms, namely Minakshi Sales, Krishna Road lines & Nandan Enterprises from where he is in receipt of interest, remuneration & share in profit. Apart from the earnings from partnership firms, the assessee also has commission income and income from other sources. 4. As observed by the Ld. AO that during year under assessment, there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to him. While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned about the noncompliance by the assessee / appellant and, therefore, on the basis of material available on record, after deliberations on merits of the case, the decision was granted with the following observations: 4. Non-compliance by the appellant:- During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided more than enough opportunities, however, neither the appellant nor his AR filed any written submission on the pre-fixed hearing dates. The details of opportunity provided to the appellant are given here below:- Date of Notice Datte of hearing Remarks 24.12.2020 08.01.201 The appellant neither sought adjournment nor filed any submission on the date of hearing fixed. 04.03.2023 13.03.2023 The appellant sought adjournment but failed to furnish any submission on the date of hearing fixed. Subsequently, the appellant sought adjournments on 27.03.2023, 10.05.2023, 21.06.2023, 28.07.2023, 11.09.2023 & 26.10.2023. 30.10.2023 11.12.2023 The appellant neither sought adjournment nor filed any submission on the date of hearing fixed. 5. Discussion and appellate decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,86,107.65. Since the appellant failed to furnish any such vital details/evidences either before' the AO during the course of assessment proceedings or before this office during the appellate proceedings, therefore, the appellant failed to satisfactorily prove that he was eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, addition of Rs. 53,86,107.65 made for disallowance of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is hereby confirmed. In view of the above, on merits also appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on merits too. All the grounds of appeal are treated as dismissed. 7. Disappointed with the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before us. 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative, Shri G.S. Agrawal, on behalf of the assessee (in short "AR"), drew our attention to page no. 7 of the PB No. 2, showing copy of sale deed registered on 11.03.2014 for sale of land at Rs. 1,08,00,000/-, stating that the entire consideration was received by the assessee before execution of the said sale deed. Ld. AR further drew our attention to page no. 8 of the PB No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring to the ground no. 1 it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was passed in haste, even after the adjournment request of the assessee to adjourn the case upto 08.12.2023 whereas the order was passed on 07.12.2023. It is the submission that the assessee was not provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard. The assessee was deprived of placing its explanations, contentions and the evidence to support the claim under the provisions of Section 54F of the Act. Backed by such arguments it was the prayer of the Ld. AR that order of Ld. CIT(A) passed without appreciating the complete facts only on the basis of findings of the Ld. AO, the matter in all fairness, in the interest of justice shall be restore back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same in light of the additional evidence furnished. 10. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR on behalf of the revenue strongly supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and have submitted that since the assessee had squarely failed in furnishing requisite details regarding the evidence of investment in house property out of the sale proceeds of the land against which deduction was claimed u/s 54F, thus, Ld. AO had rightly rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation, opportunities were granted and the assessee had sought adjournments on various dates, however the order was passed considering the facts on record. While submitting additional evidence before us, Ld. AR have furnished the documents like valuation report by the approved valuer, personal capital account and statement of affair of Smt. Jyoti Agrawal as on 31.03.2018, Bhavan Anugya from Municipal Corporation. Ld. AR, to establish with the support of such document that the assessee had made the investment in the house for which valuation report is prepared by the approved valuer and permission was granted by Municipal Corporation. It is also explained that apart from assessee, his wife also had invested certain amount in the said property. Ld. AR also shown us the statement of affairs of the assessee as on 31.03.2006, 2013, 2014 & 2015, with an argument that the assessee has duly shown the amount of investment and further investment in the relevant year and ensuing year. 12. After carefully going through the aforesaid submissions by both the parties and on a thoughtful consideration of the contentions raised by the Ld. AR, it is ostensible that though the assessee had shown t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant to determine appropriate cost of construction, however, same was not considered Matter was to be reminded to examine such valuation report and decide matter afresh." 15. In view of aforesaid observations by the coordinate benches of the tribunal, respectfully drawing the corollary adopted therein, that though the assessee fails to produce bills / vouchers of construction activity, the claim of deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied without considering the relevant documents which are furnish before us as additional evidence u/r 29 of the ITAT Rules. Since, such additional evidence is not before the Ld. CIT(A), there is no occasion for him to decide the issue, considering the information emanating from such documents. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that in all fairness and in the interest of principle of natural justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the set aside appellate proceedings and liberty to produce necessary evidence / information /evidence to substantiate the contentions raised. 16. In result, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
