Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order disallowing a deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act on short-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer treated the sale of property as short-term capital gain. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) or provide supporting documents for her claim.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support the claim of long-term capital gains or eligibility for deduction u/s 54F. The assessee's contentions were not supported by facts and lacked documentary proof.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F for short-term capital gains when no supporting evidence was provided to the lower authorities or the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
54F, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment Year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,33,53,900/ 1,33,53,900/- under the head Short Term Capital Gain thereby head Short Term Capital Gain thereby disallowing, deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact of the disallowing, deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact of the disallowing, deduction u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact of the case and certified document produced before him. case and certified document produced before him. case and certified document produced before him. Same is contrary to various settled judicial decisions and bad in law and contrary to various settled judicial decisions and bad in law and contrary to various settled judicial decisions and bad in law and should be deleted. should be deleted.
2. The Appellant prays that the Learned Commissioner of Income Appellant prays that the Learned Commissioner of Income Appellant prays that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax -Appeals has not exercised the wide array of powers Appeals has not exercised the wide array of powers Appeals has not exercised the wide array of powers available to him under the provisions of Income Tax Act to available to him under the provisions of Income Tax Act to available to him under the provisions of Income Tax Act to ascertain the facts before confirming the additions in hands of ascertain the facts before confirming the additions in hands of ascertain the facts before confirming the additions in hands of Appellant and the add Appellant and the additions should be deleted.
At the outset, it is mentioned that despite notifying neither At the outset, it is mentioned that despite notifying neither At the outset, it is mentioned that despite notifying neither anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed, therefore, we were of the opinion that filed, therefore, we were of the opinion that filed, therefore, we were of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecutin assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and g the appeal and therefore, same was heard therefore, same was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing qua the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3 ) of the Income order passed u/s 143(3 ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer treated the sale of the Act’) dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer treated the sale of the Act’) dated 30.12.2017, the Assessing Officer treated the sale of the property as short term capital gain and accordingly disallowed the property as short term capital gain and accordingly disallowed the property as short term capital gain and accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54 claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. On further appeal, despite of the Act. On further appeal, despite issuing seven notices issuing seven notices, no representation was made before the Ld. on was made before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of documents CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of documents CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of documents available on records, dismissed the effective grounds of the assessee dismissed the effective grounds of the assessee observing as under:
“8.3. It is seen that the appellant has not made any compliance 8.3. It is seen that the appellant has not made any compliance 8.3. It is seen that the appellant has not made any compliance to the hearing notices issued. It is pertinent to mention that the ng notices issued. It is pertinent to mention that the ng notices issued. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had stated that property was allotted to her on appellant had stated that property was allotted to her on appellant had stated that property was allotted to her on 05/12/2011. However, on verification of the records, the 05/12/2011. However, on verification of the records, the 05/12/2011. However, on verification of the records, the property was only transferred to the appellant on 19/01/2015. property was only transferred to the appellant on 19/01/2015. property was only transferred to the appellant on 19/01/2015. Moreover, the appellant' Moreover, the appellant's contention.cannot be accepted since s contention.cannot be accepted since she had failed to explain as to how the property was allotted to she had failed to explain as to how the property was allotted to she had failed to explain as to how the property was allotted to her on 05/12/2011, when no such property was existent on that her on 05/12/2011, when no such property was existent on that her on 05/12/2011, when no such property was existent on that day. Furthermore, there is no mention regarding the allotment of day. Furthermore, there is no mention regarding the allotment of day. Furthermore, there is no mention regarding the allotment of property in the name of ap property in the name of appellant in the registered agreement pellant in the registered agreement dated 14.02.2012. Under the circumstances, the contention of the dated 14.02.2012. Under the circumstances, the contention of the dated 14.02.2012. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the property was taken over by her on appellant that the property was taken over by her on appellant that the property was taken over by her on 05/12/2011 is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted. The mere 05/12/2011 is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted. The mere 05/12/2011 is devoid of facts and cannot be accepted. The mere claim of the appellant cannot be accept claim of the appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any ed in the absence of any such supporting proof. During the course of appellate proceedings such supporting proof. During the course of appellate proceedings such supporting proof. During the course of appellate proceedings too, no essential supporting documents were furnished which are too, no essential supporting documents were furnished which are too, no essential supporting documents were furnished which are required to establish genuineness of the claim made. Before the required to establish genuineness of the claim made. Before the required to establish genuineness of the claim made. Before the first Appellate Authority also, the a first Appellate Authority also, the appellant merely stated that ppellant merely stated that the additions are wrongly made and never turned up with solid the additions are wrongly made and never turned up with solid the additions are wrongly made and never turned up with solid documentary evidence to satisfy the merits of the case. Nothing is documentary evidence to satisfy the merits of the case. Nothing is documentary evidence to satisfy the merits of the case. Nothing is submitted to verify the genuineness of the claims made in the submitted to verify the genuineness of the claims made in the submitted to verify the genuineness of the claims made in the Grounds of appeal
. Grounds of appeal. 8.4. It is pertine 8.4. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant was provided as nt to mention that the appellant was provided as many as 7 opportunities during the appellate proceedings. many as 7 opportunities during the appellate proceedings. many as 7 opportunities during the appellate proceedings. However, the appellant has not produced any documentary However, the appellant has not produced any documentary However, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of its claim made in grounds of appeal. Also, evidence in support of its claim made in grounds of appeal. Also, evidence in support of its claim made in grounds of appeal. Also, the appellant failed to fur the appellant failed to furnish proper explanation with supporting nish proper explanation with supporting documentary evidence to prove her contentions during the course documentary evidence to prove her contentions during the course documentary evidence to prove her contentions during the course of the appellate proceedings too. Since the appellant did not of the appellate proceedings too. Since the appellant did not of the appellate proceedings too. Since the appellant did not respond to any of the seven hearing notices sent, this appellate respond to any of the seven hearing notices sent, this appellate respond to any of the seven hearing notices sent, this appellate authority is of the opini authority is of the opinion that the appellant has no material to on that the appellant has no material to submit in support of her grounds. submit in support of her grounds. 8.5. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably concluded 8.5. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably concluded 8.5. In view of the above facts, it can be reasonably concluded that the nature o income is short capital gain and the Assessing that the nature o income is short capital gain and the Assessing that the nature o income is short capital gain and the Assessing Officer has taxed them under income from short term Officer has taxed them under income from short term Officer has taxed them under income from short term capital gains after considering both factual and circumstantia evidence. gains after considering both factual and circumstantia evidence. gains after considering both factual and circumstantia evidence. No infirmity is found in the order of the Assessing Officer and the No infirmity is found in the order of the Assessing Officer and the No infirmity is found in the order of the Assessing Officer and the action c the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as short term action c the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as short term action c the Assessing Officer treating the receipts as short term capital gains and taxin them warrants confirmati capital gains and taxin them warrants confirmati capital gains and taxin them warrants confirmation. The appellant does not succeed in this ground and th Ground No. 1 appellant does not succeed in this ground and th Ground No. 1 appellant does not succeed in this ground and th Ground No. 1 filed by the appellant is hereby filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.”
4. We have heard We have heard the submission of the Ld. DR and perused the the submission of the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. W relevant material on record. We find that no evidence in support of e find that no evidence in support of contention of the sale of the assessee as long term capital gain and of the sale of the assessee as long term capital gain and of the sale of the assessee as long term capital gain and for subsequent deduction u/s 54F of the Act for subsequent deduction u/s 54F of the Act have been filed either have been filed either before the lower authorities or before us. Evidently without before the lower authorities or before us. Evidently without before the lower authorities or before us. Evidently without supporting the sale transaction as long term capital gain, the supporting the sale transaction as long term capital gain, the supporting the sale transaction as long term capital gain, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, e is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, e is not entitled for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. Accordingly the we uphold the same. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. sult, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. sult, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.