M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 316/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 April 2021AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's precarious financial position and in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F/54EC of the Income Tax Act on capital gains from the sale of immovable property. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F/54EC on capital gains, and if a further opportunity for hearing should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 54EC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey-DR
Hearing: 11/03/2021Pronounced: 07/04/2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2007-08 M. Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs. ACIT, Hyderabad. Circle-8(1), PAN: AATPM 6618 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey-DR Date of hearing: 11/03/2021 Date of pronouncement: 07/04/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0074/2014-15, dated 29/11/2016 passed U/s. 154 r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2007-08.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal however, the crux of the issues is that the :-

“The Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in denying the claim of deduction U/s. 54F / 54EC of the Act to the assessee.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld AR submitted before us that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction with respect to the capital gains earned by the assessee on sale of his immovable property. The Ld. AR further pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to argue his case before the Ld. AO otherwise, the assessee will be put to irreparable loss. The ld. DR vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. Thought the Ld. Revenue Authorities had granted sufficient opportunities to the assessee, considering the precarious financial position of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the entire matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration thereby providing the assessee with one more opportunity before the ld. AO of being heard. At the same breath, we also caution the assessee to promptly cooperate before the ld. Revenue Authorities in order to expedite their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on record.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.

Pronounced in the open Court on 07th April, 2021.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →