HASAMEEN ,MEERUT U.P. vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(4) MEERUT U.P, MEERUT (U.P)
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1504/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13
Hasameen, Vs. ITO, Ward-72(3), 282, Boundary Road, Civil New Delhi Lane, Meerut, U.P. PIN: 250001 PAN :ASLPH3796D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Mohit Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 13.07.2022 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2022
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 14.09.2021
passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the
assessment year 2012-13.
I have heard Shri Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee
and Shri Om Prakash, learned Departmental Representative.
2 ITA No.1504/Del./2021
The basic grievance of the assessee is against non-consideration
of the additional evidences filed before learned first appellate
authority.
Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident individual. For the
assessment year under dispute, assessee did not file any return of
income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessing
officer received information that assessee had sold an immoveable
property during the year for a consideration of Rs.52,77,000. Since,
the assessee did not offer any capital gain, assessing officer reopened
the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. As observed by the
assessing officer, in course of assessment proceedings, the husband of
the assessee appeared and submitted a written reply. As stated by the
assessing officer, in the written reply assessee admitted of having sold
immoveable property during the year and requested for some more
time to collect and furnish the required document. Alleging that
assessee did not furnish the documents, assessing officer proceeded to
complete the assessment under Section 144 read with section 147 of
the Act, to the best of his judgment, adding back an amount of
Rs.52,77,000 as short term capital gain. Against the assessment order
3 ITA No.1504/Del./2021
so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner
(Appeals). As it appears on record, in course of proceedings before
learned First Appellate Authority, assessee wanted to file certain
additional evidences as well as additional grounds in relation to capital
gain and corresponding deduction under Section 54F of the Act.
However, learned first appellate authority refused to admit the
additional evidences on the ground that assessee, though, had
sufficient opportunity to produce them at the assessment stage, did not
do so.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on
record, I am of the view that assessee deserves an opportunity to
furnish necessary documentary evidences to establish her claim on the
issue of addition made on account of short term capital gain. This is so
because, the assessing officer has treated the assets sold as short term
capital assets. Whereas, it is the claim of the assessee that it is a long
term asset, hence, capital gain, if any, should be assessed as long term
capital gain. Further, assessee claims to have made investment in
terms with section 54F of the Act. Thus, if the assessee wants to
establish her claim through supporting evidences, which she could not
4 ITA No.1504/Del./2021
furnish at the assessment stage as the assessment proceedings were
concluded under Section 144 of the Act, such opportunity should have
been granted to the assessee.
In view of the aforesaid, I set aside the impugned order of
learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to the
assessing officer for de novo adjudication after due and reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case, assessee wants to
furnish any evidence before the assessing officer, liberty is granted to
her to do so. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the evidences
furnished by the assessee on their own merits and decide the issue in
accordance with law. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2022. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th July, 2022. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
5 ITA No.1504/Del./2021
Sl. No. Particulars Date 1. Date of dictation (Order drafted through Dragon software): 26.07.2022 2. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the 27.07.2022 Dictating Member: 3. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the other Member: 4. Date on which the approved draft of order comes to 28.07.2022 the Sr. PS/PS: 5. Date of which the fair order is placed before the 28.07.2022 Dictating Member for pronouncement: 6. Date on which the final order received after having 29.07.2022 been singed/pronounced by the Members: 7. Date on which the final order is uploaded on the 29.07.2022 website of ITAT: 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 29.07.2022 9. Date on which files goes to the Head Clerk: 10. Date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: 11. Date of dispatch of order:
