RAMAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 15 (1), CHENNAI

This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047270584(1) dated 14.11.2022. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 15(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 21.12.2016.

The ld.counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing stated that the CIT(A) has called for remand report vide letter No. dated 16.04.2018, as he has referred back the written submissions and evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings by the assessee. The ld.counsel stated that the appeal before CIT(A) was ultimately referred to NFAC, Delhi and decided the appeal of assessee without calling for remand report as by his predecessor. The CIT(A) decided the appeal vide order dated 14.11.2022. Hence, he requested that matter may be referred back to the file of the CIT(A) or he suggested that matter can go back to the file of the AO who will examine the claim u/s. 54F of the Act. He narrated the facts that the assessee purchased land at Kapivakkam Hamlet in Gangadevankuppam Village, Kanchipuram District on 01.08.2013. The assessee sold property on 13.08.2010 with a consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by claiming that the assessee has purchased 3 another residential land on 01.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.99,00,000/- and constructed house thereon at Rs.79,95,996/- including Rs.4,00,000/- as brokerage charges. The assessee also claimed that he has incurred incidental expenses of Rs.1,98,000/- and Rs.12,49,200/- towards stamp duty charges. The AO disallowed the claim of exemption only on the reason that the assessee did not complete the construction within the time limit provided u/s.54F of the Act and even the sale proceeds were not deposited in capital gains account. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO on the same reasoning.

When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR that the predecessor CIT(A) has required remand report and whether the AO has given remand report, he could not answer the same but he also stated that matter can be referred back to the file of the AO to examine in detail the written submissions and evidences filed by assessee before CIT(A) for which the predecessor CIT(A) has asked for remand report vide letter dated 16.04.2018.

In term of the above, after hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the CIT(A) should have called for remand report before deciding the issue as the CIT(A) [predecessor] has already 4 required for remand report from the AO vide letter dated 16.04.2018. Since this was not done, we remand this matter back to the file of the AO, who will examine the details and then decide the issue of claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act, as per law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.