CHANDRA PRAKASH REDDY VELMA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1508/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 54 deduction back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with all evidence regarding the non-completion of the residential house.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for reinvesting capital gains in a house property. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the disallowance of this deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption under Section 54, and the circumstances leading to the non-completion of the construction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad’s order dated 07-06-2019 passed in appeal No.10620/2018-19/A3/CIT(A)-6, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee has canvassed the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

1.

“1.The order of the learned First Appellate Authority is not correct in law or on facts and in both. 2.The learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs.1,02,64,008/- claimed u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act. 3.The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the facts that all ingredients/conditions laid down for claiming exemption u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act were fulfilled before the Assessing Officer and hence the denial of exemption u/s.54 is not justified.

4. The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the legal disputes and other circumstances under which the constructions could not be completed. 5.The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal”.

3.

The assessee’s grievance in a nutshell is that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing his Section 54 deduction claim of having re- invested the capital gains in issue in house property. We notice in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order has been passed ex-parte.

4.

Learned departmental representative vehemently contended that neither the assessee himself nor any authorised representative had put in appearance before the CIT(A). And this forms the precise reasons for him to affirm.

5.

Faced with this technical issue and more so when the assessee’s representative had appeared; although without power of attorney from the lower appellate discussion in para 4.3 pg.4, we deem it appropriate that larger interest of justice would be met in case the assessee’s impugned Section 54 deduction issue is restored back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication. We order accordingly. It is made clear that the assessee or his authorised representative shall appear before the CIT(A) on or before 30-09-2021 with all the detailed evidence(s) indicating the compelling circumstances of non-completion of the residential house as per law; at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities of hearing.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2021

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →