SUSHILA EKNATH SAKORE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1597/PUN/2019Status: HeardITAT Pune04 May 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction in principle but directed the AO to expeditiously implement the order, considering additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding investments and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F on capital gains from property transfer. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption due to lack of supporting documents. The CIT(A) directed the AO to refer the property valuation to the DVO.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F and the proper procedure for determining the capital gains in light of missing documentation and additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sasar
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-5, Pune on 19-06-2019 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against not allowing exemption u/s.54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.11,99,580/-. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee transferred certain property resulting into capital gain of Rs.18,55,910/-. Exemption u/s.54F of the Act was claimed by the assessee. In the absence of any relevant documents in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the benefit of the exemption. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to refer the valuation of the impugned property to the Divisional Valuation Officer (DVO) and then determine the income from long term capital gain in the assessee’s case after obtaining the valuation report.

Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee could not substantiate the case about the investment in the new property before the AO. The ld. AR has filed certain additional evidence in support of such investments. The ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to refer the matter of valuation of the property to the DVO and thereafter determine income from long term capital gain. The ld. AR submitted that despite the direction having been given in the year 2019, the AO has still not given any effect to this direction.

1.

In the given facts, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the ld. CIT(A), in principle, does not require any interference.

However, the AO is directed to expeditiously give effect to the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and while determining the income from long term capital gain, he should take into consideration the additional evidence filed by the assessee in support of investments.

Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04th May, 2022.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →