Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment for AY 2012-13 included a disallowance under Section 54F. An earlier Tribunal order had remanded this issue to the AO for a de novo assessment. However, the assessee failed to submit required evidence to the AO due to her grandson's serious illness, leading the AO to again deny the exemption, and the CIT(A) summarily dismissed the subsequent appeal citing Rule 46A.
Held
The Tribunal found the reason for non-compliance (grandson's critical illness) valid. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim under Section 54F, directing the AO to provide a fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering additional evidence, given the exceptional circumstances of the assessee's family illness, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to furnish proof for the Section 54F exemption.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Janak Sureshbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Vs. L/h of Late Arunaben Sureshbhai Ward1(2)(1), Patel, C-41, Pramukh Swami Vadodara Vihar Society, Old Padra Road, Vadodara-390020 (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, CA Respondent by: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 27.08.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The solitary ground of appeal taken by the Assessee is as follows :-
In view of the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the order of the Ld. A.O. and directed him to give fresh opportunity of being heard and pass the appropriate order considering the facts and your appellant prays that the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the Ld. AO to pass the order fresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Janak Sureshbhai Patel L/h of late Arunaben S. Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–
3. In this case, assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was originally completed on 04.03.2015 determining total income at Rs.67,43,436/- as against the returned income of Rs.9,74,220/-, by making additions on account of cost of acquisition of Rs.86,790/- and disallowance u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.58,15,000/-. Since additions made by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal who set aside the issue of claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue de-novo after examination of the supporting materials to be produced by the assessee. Since the assessee did not submit any reply or documentary evidence in support of her claim u/s 54F of the Act before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.09.2021 again denied the exemption u/s 54F of the Act.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidences submitted by the assessee before him to justify the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground that assessee had failed to submit the reasons for additional evidence, by simply quoting Rule 46A of IT Rules which prescribes the circumstances under which the assessee can file additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) himself has stated the reason for non-appearance of the assessee before the Assessing Janak Sureshbhai Patel L/h of late Arunaben S. Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– Officer in the facts mentioned by him in the impugned order page Nos. 2-3 which is reproduced hereunder :- “ 1. The assessee is old widow lady leaving with his son JANAK. 2. During the year under appeal, the appellant derived the LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN which she invested in the purchase of new residential house and claimed the deduction U/s. 54 F of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. So far as the claim of the appellant U/s. 54 F of the Act, it is submitted that:
A) The appellant is an Individual and has purchased the plot of land and gave the contract for the construction of the house on it.
B) During the previous year relevant to A. Y. 2012-13, the appellant itself entered into the agreement for the purchase of a land and a construction of the house at the total cost of Rs. 58,15,000/- & that was paid well within the time.
C) The Ld. A. 0. explained the provisions relating to the time limit prescribed U/s. 54 F and also agreed that the purchase is very well within the time limit.
REGARDING THE ORDER UNDER APPPEAL:-
During the present proceedings for the order under appeal, the Ld. A.O. issued the notice and also letter dated 01 ST September, 2021 and called for some details.
During this period the appellant and his entire family was very badly disturbed due to serious illness of -KIRTAN JANAKBHAI PATEL- the grandson of the appellant aged about 14 years.
In the month of JULY 21 KIRTAN was not keeping well and in the beginning of AUGUST 21 KIRTAN was diaognised with multiple tumours in Brain and after surgery and Biopsy the same were found to be malignant. After surgery of brain, some tumours could be removed but now he is on radiation with nuclear medicines. For ready reference, the medical reports are attached herewith. Janak Sureshbhai Patel L/h of late Arunaben S. Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 4–
As the appellant and her son JANAK were very much disturbed due to this and were tied up with hospitals to save the life of 14 year old KIRTAN (grandson of the appellant), the notice though received could not be attended to and the reply could not be submitted with evidences already submitted in first round.
In view of the above, the appellant most humbly prays that the order passed by the Ld. A. O. be quashed and he be directed to give fresh opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidences to prove the compliance as per the Directions issued by Hon. ITAT.”
Citing the above, the Ld. AR submitted that, since his entire family was severely distressed due to serious illness of his grandson, he could not attend before the Assessing Officer and submit the evidences before him. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that given an opportunity due compliance will be made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Ld. DR opposed in principle. Having gone through the record before us, we find that the prayer of the Ld. AR can be considered. Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is referred to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue of claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.