Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturalist, sold ancestral land and invested in another agricultural land, claiming exemption under Section 54B. The AO invoked Section 147/148, calculated capital gains based on an old sale deed and did not deduct cost of improvement, issuing notices under Section 148, 143(2) and 144.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the AO and CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment was bad due to non-compliance with statutory notices and lack of jurisdiction, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice.
Sections Cited
54B, 54F, 147, 148, 143(2), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/03/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 13/11/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Assessee is barred by limitation by 22 days for which the assessee has filed a condonation application which is placed on record.
After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication.
In the present appeal assessee’s main contention is that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case without considering the reply, remand report and also the reply to remand report given by him to CIT(A).
Briefly the facts of the case are thatthe assesses is an agricultural who sold ancestral Agricultural Land in the financial year 2006-07, and the assesseehas invested the gain in purchase of another agricultural land & therefore the gain on sale of agricultural land is exempt under section 54B of Income Tax. The assessee has also purchased/ constructed residential out of sale proceeds of agricultural land & therefore the assesseeis also eligible for exemption u/s 54F of Income Tax Act. It was submitted that the Ld. AO has wrongly taken fair market value as on 01.04.1961 simply on the basis of registered sale deed of land situated in another village without appreciating the area, quality of land sold by appellant. The Ld. AO could not deducted the cost of improvement made by assessee after 01.04.1981. The Ld. AOhas wrongly invoiced the provisions of section 147/148 of Income Act without establishing the fact that the assesses has taxable capital gain after exemption & deduction of cost of improvement. The learned assessing officer has not served the requisite notice u/s 148 , 143(2) & 144 of Income Tax Act & therefore the assessment is bad & deserves to be quashed. It was also submitted that the Ld. AOhas no jurisdiction over the assessee& the order passed by assessing officer is without jurisdiction & deserves to quashed. While calculating Long term Capital gain, the Ld. AO has relied on the safe deed of land of another village dated 27.08.1981 for 4 canals 9 marle sold for Rs 11000. The Ld. AOhas wrongly relied upon the registered sale deed of another village The method of FMV as on 01.04.1981 is totally baseless & deserves to ignored. The learned assessing officer has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard in person & the order passed by AO was in violation of principal of natural justice. The learned assessing officer has not taken the approval from competent authority for invoking the provisions of section 147 of Income Tax Act.
Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the order of the ld. AO.
Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee came up in appeal before us and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without considering the submission filed by him.
Per contra the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was held as under: 4. It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner, a number of notices / communications / correspondences were made through ITBA portal to the appellant, viz., communications dated 30.01.2021, 04.05.2022, 29.07.2022, 01.12.2022, 07.062023, 15.09.2023 and 03.11.2023. However, there has been no compliances from the part of the appellant till date. There Is no gainsaying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and cooperatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non- compliance of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed of, as under, ex-parte, primarily on the basis of documentation available on record. The appellant has failed to avail the opportunity to file I furnish the submissions / documents In support of the grounds of appeal though the appellant was offered for sufficient opportunity to file / furnish the submissions during the course of appellate proceedings. Furthermore, It Is pertinent that the appellant has not sought any adjournment during the appellate proceedings.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and material perused on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the documents and reply filed by the assesseewere not considered neither by the AO nor by the Ld. CIT(A). However, several notices were send to the assessee through ITBA portal but appeal was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) exparte due to non compliance of the said notice. We are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee for representing his case. Hence, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after considering the reply and submissions filed by the assessee.