RAJANI MULLICK,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 41/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 May 2024AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that crucial facts regarding the nature of property sold and purchased were not clear from the lower authorities' orders and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 29 days and the assessee was unrepresented before the CIT(A). The assessee sought to restore the issues to the AO for readjudication, citing lack of proper documentation during the original assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to unclear facts regarding property nature and lack of proper documentation, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Hearing: 20/0Pronounced: 20/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajani Rajani Mullick, Mullick, Plot, Plot, Vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), ITO, Ward 3(4), No.3033, No.3033, Swarg, Swarg, Kedar Kedar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Gouri Chhack, Old Town, Gouri Chhack, Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No PAN/GIR No.AOTPM 1692 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 20/0 05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 1.11.2023 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubanewar- 2/10260/2019 2/10260/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Shri P.R.Mohanty, P.R.Mohanty, ld AR assisted by Ms Rajashree Routray and Shri assisted by Ms Rajashree Routray and Shri Aayush Nayak, int Aayush Nayak, interns from Madhusudan Law University erns from Madhusudan Law University appeared for the assessee and Shri assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR assisted by assisted by Shri Rashmi Ranjan

P a g e 1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Parida and Shri Ayush Ranjan Behera, interns from Madhusudan Law University appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that admittedly, the assessee had been unrepresented before the ld CIT(A). It was also the submission that even before the AO, the assessee had not been able to submit all the documents required for completion of the assessment. It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of the AO for readjudication and the assessee would cooperate in the set aside proceedings. It was also the submission that the appeal is delayed by 29 days. It was the submission that as the assessee did not receive the appellate order from the counsel and immediately when the assessee came to know about the failure, the assessee has taken remedial measures in filing the appeal. It was the prayer that the delay may be condoned.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that adequate opportunity had been granted to the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO be confirmed. Ld Sr DR submitted that once the assessee become disentitled to the exemption u/s.54F of the Act, then the disentitlement applies to entire claim u/s. 54F and claim for individual asset cannot be considered.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the affidavit filed by the assessee has not been found to be false and also the delay is P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2017-18 only 29 days. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice and equity, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal disposed of on merits.

6.

A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that all the facts required for adjudication are not emanating out of the order of the AO or from the Ld CIT(A). There is confusion as to whether what has been sold by the assessee, is a residential property or commercial property. There is also confusion as to the purchase by the assessee and whether they are residential or commercial by the assessee. The documents filed by the assessee have not been considered by the ld CIT(A), consequently, cannot be looked into by the Tribunal at this present stage. This being so, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld AO for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate in the set aside proceedings and produce all such documents as called for by the Assessing officer.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/05/2024.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →