VIRENDER SINGH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3600/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 February 2023AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to an inordinate delay of 1193 days, for which no sufficient documentary evidence was provided to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F for investment in construction of a residential house after selling a residential land. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating all grounds, citing lack of evidence and non-compliance with Section 54F provisions.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper adjudication of all grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 143(3),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.02.2023

The Ld. AO thus computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 89,75,050/- in his order dated 27.01.2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Act.

4.

On appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal observing and recording his findings in paras 4.1 to 4.3 which are reproduced below:

“4.1 During appeal proceedings in the written submission, the appellant pursued only one ground that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F in respect of investment in construction of house. No submission or arguments were made w.r.t. other grounds. Therefore, ground no. 4 is being adjudicated and other grounds of appeal are rejected as not pressed and general in nature.

4.2 The assessing officer has denied the deduction u/s 54F with respect to investment of Rs. 17,50,000/- in residential house holding that:- “ As regards, investment of Rs. 1750000/- in the construction of house, the assessee has made investment in “remodeling” and “renovation” of old ancestral parental house and such investment cannot be said to have been made in construction of house. The assessee has not constructed any new building as alleged by him and not made investment in the construction of the new building. Therefore, assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 in respect of Rs. 1750000/- cannot be allowed.”

4.3 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has submitted that the house was nearly constructed and has submitted a valuation report of the valuer regarding its cost of construction. The appellant has not produced any evidence to disprove the Assessing Officer’s finding that the house was remodeled or renovated. Besides, the claim of the appellant of deduction u/s 54F is not allowable because the appellant has not produced how and when the cost of new house was paid. The provisions of Section 54F clearly state that the assessee had to either utilize the consideration or deposit it in Capital Gains Account Scheme by the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and furnish the proof of same with the return of income. The appellant has admitted that no amount was deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme. No proof that the amount was utilized in the manner prescribed u/s 54F (4) has been furnished with return of income. Since the conditions laid down in section 54F (4) have not been met, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the appeal is rejected. ”

5.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto.

6.

The appeal to the Tribunal was found to have been filed late by 1193 days which was notified to the assessee vide Registry’s letter dated 14.05.2018. There is on record application for condonation of delay.

7.

Hearing was fixed by the Tribunal on 27.07.2021, 22.09.2021, 22.11.2021, 24.01.2022, 29.03.2022, 15.06.2022, 12.09.2022, 22.11.2022 and finally on 07.02.2023. None attended for the assessee whereas the Revenue was represented by the Ld. DR on all the above dates.

8.

As stated earlier, the appeal to the Tribunal has been filed late by 1193 days. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay of 1193 days which has been attributed by the assessee to his continuous ill- health and severe depression on account of family problems. However, no documentary proof has been submitted in support thereof. Hence the inordinate delay cannot be condoned. In the said application it has also been mentioned that the assessee is showing the sign of recovery. None-the- less neither the assessee nor his Authorised Representative appeared on any of the date(s) of hearing fixed by the Tribunal.

9.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the appeal is not maintainable.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →