ANKITA SINGH,NALSAROVAR, ADODARA, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL () Assessment Year: 2013-14
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
04.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
Disallowa 54F of the In On facts and CIT(A) by con erred in dis 55,15,951/-. 2. The Ld. opportunitie On facts and AO has gross opportunities show cause n 3. Initiating On facts and AO has gros penalty u/s. 2 The proceedin wrongly initia 2. Briefly stated, return of income Rs.7,93,460/-. The selected for scrutiny Income-tax Act, 196 served upon the ass partly responded. In deduction u/s 54F o supporting documen proceedings. Therefo the Act i.e. best judg disallowed the claim ITA ance of deduction of Rs.55,15,951/- c ncome Tax Act, 1961: d in the circumstances of the case and nfirming the order passed by the Ld. AO sallowing the deduction claimed u/s AO passed order without giving es: in the circumstances of the case and in ly erred in passed Order without giving r and passed the Assessment order wi notice to the appellant. penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of th in the circumstances of the case and in ssly erred in initiating the proceedings 271(1)(c) of the Act when no such penalt ngs initiated by the Ld. AO should be dro ated. facts of the case are that the on 06.08.2013 declaring to return of income filed by the y assessment and statutory no 61 (in short ‘the Act’) were is sessee. Subsequent notices is n the return of income, the as f the Act amounting to Rs.55,1 nts were filed before the AO dur re, in the assessment order pas gment dated 29.03.2016, the A m of deduction u/s 54F of the Ankita Singh 2 A No. 5146/MUM/2024 claimed u/s d in law, Ld. O has grossly 54F of Rs. reasonable law, the Ld. reasonable of ithout giving he Act: law, the Ld. s for levy of ty is leviable. opped as it is e assessee filed otal income at e assessee was otices under the ssued and duly sued were only ssessee claimed 5,951/- ,but no ring assessment ssed u/s 144 of Assessing Officer Act. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT( under: “5.2. Ground action of the u/s 54F of th that relevant not submitted of any notice ongoing asses to submit rele within two w CIT(A). I have cons undisputed fa Appellant ma any supportin that the Appe of present pro to be furnishe the Appellan exemption of R the action of claimed u/s 5 3. We have consid perused the relevant submitted by the le counsel referred to t delay in filing the assessee filed an affid outside Mumbai for his authorized repre considering the ass ITA
(A) also upheld the disallowanc
2 Vide this ground, the Appellant has ch
AO in denying exemption of Rs.55,15,9
he Act. In this regard, the Appellant ha details in support of exemption claimed u d before the AO since the Appellant was n e u/s 143(2)/142(1) and thus, was n ssment proceedings. The Appellant furth evant details in support of claim of exemp weeks from the date of submission of sidered the submissions of the App act is that the AO denied the claim of exem ade u/s 54F since the Appellant had n ng documents. In this regard, it is furth ellant has failed to furnish such details i oceedings as well, although, the same w ed. Therefore, in view of the same, it is co nt has not been able to substantiate
Rs.55,15,951/- made u/s 54F. According f AO in denying the exemption of Rs
54F of the Act. Ground is, thus, dismissed dered the rival submissions of b materials on record, including earned counsel for the assesse the application for condonation appeal. In support of this a davit stating that he was contin business purposes and had re esentative, which resulted in t sessee’s submission, we find
Ankita Singh
3
A No. 5146/MUM/2024
ce observing as hallenged the 951/-claimed as submitted u/s 54F was not in receipt not aware of her promised ption u/s 54F reply before pellant. The mption of the not furnished her observed in the course was promised oncluded that its claim of gly, I confirm
.55,15,951/- d.”
both parties and the paper book ee. The learned n of a 334-days application, the uously traveling elied entirely on he delay. Upon that there is sufficient cause for t delay is condoned, an 3.1 Having consider counsel for the asse we find that the ass before the Learned C support of the deduc
Tax Act. The learned
Book, specifically pa letter evidencing inve been made to pages substantiating the in property. The learn assessee is willing relevant documents
Section 54F. In view in the interest of sub aside the order pass
Accordingly, the ma
Officer for fresh ad opportunity to pre
Ground No. 2 of th allowed.
ITA the delay in filing the appeal. A nd the appeal is admitted for adj red the submissions advanced ssee and the ld Departmental sessee was not afforded adequ
CIT(A) to furnish the necessary ction claimed under Section 54
d counsel has drawn our attenti age 72, which contains a copy o estment in the flat. Additionally
69 to 70, which include the b nvestment made towards the p ned counsel has further subm to appear before the CIT(A) in support of the deduction of the facts and circumstances bstantial justice, we deem it ap sed by the CIT(A) on the issue atter is remanded to the file o djudication after affording the sent the requisite evidence.
he appeal preferred by the a Ankita Singh
4
A No. 5146/MUM/2024
Accordingly, the djudication.
by the learned representative , uate opportunity y documents in F of the Income ion to the Paper of the allotment y, reference has bank statements purchase of the mitted that the and submit all claimed under of the case, and ppropriate to set under dispute.
f the Assessing e assessee due
Consequently, assessee stands
2 Since we have the AO, the ground required to be adjud challenging the initia this stage, hence Accordingly the Grou 4. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 04/03/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ITA already restored the matter ba d No. 1 challenging merit of dicated upon at this stage. Th ation of the penalty proceedings we are not required to ad und Nos. 1 and 3 are dismissed a the appeal of the assessee nced in the open Court on 04/
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Ankita Singh
5
A No. 5146/MUM/2024
ack to the file of addition is not e ground No. 3
is premature at djudicate upon.
as infructuous.
is allowed for /03/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai