Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold a factory shed and land for Rs. 2.61 Cr. and invested the capital gain in a new residential property. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F, which was disallowed by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced crucial documents before the CIT(A), which prevented their consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the exemption under Section 54F for investment in residential property was wrongly disallowed. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering all documents.
Sections Cited
250, 54F, 115BBE, 69A, 131
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 22.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTNAFES OF THE CASE CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO AS THE ASSESSEE EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF Rs. 2, 04, 63,091/- AGAINST SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON IKRARNAMA AND INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE Anju Sanghi PROPERTY PURCHASED ON INKRARNAMA BY DISALLOWING THE CALIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 54F OF THE INCOME TAX.
2. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF Rs. 6, 34,493/-.
3. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMTANCES OF THE CASE CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 115BBE.
4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION OF Rs. 2, 10, 97,584/- MADE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 69A BE DELETED.
THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, REDUCE, AND AMEND, WITHDRAW OF ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 52,34,970/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. The assessee is proprietor of M/s. Sanghi Steel and partner in M/s. P.K. Industries and M/s. Auto Plux AV. The case of the assessee was assessed after disallowing exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,04,63,091/- and set of B/f LTCG loss of Rs. 6,34,493/-. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same preferred the present appeal before us.
3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A), submissions of the assessee and grounds taken before us. It is observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold factory shed and land situated at F-74, RIICO Industrial Area, Bindayaka, Jaipur vide IKRARNAMA dated: 18.04.2016 for a total sales consideration of Rs. 2.61 Cr. against this the assessee has invested the amount of capital gain in a new residential house property “Divine Residency” situated at 223, Sector-4, Chitrakoot, Jaipur for Rs. 2.11 Cr. To verify the claim of the assessee, notice u/s. 131 of the Act was issued to the Anju Sanghi assessee and her statement was recorded on 15.11.2019. In her statement she confirmed that the building under consideration was in the form of an apartment and not a residential house. She purchased four flats in the said building and only total square feet area was mentioned in the said IKRARNAMA.
4. As per the assessee’s statement, she bought Flat Nos. G-3, F-3, S-2 and S-3 with super built-up area of 5,196 Sq. Feet and covered area of 3,823 Sq. Feet. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as none appeared on behalf the assessee on designated dates as mentioned in para 6 of the appeal order. Although the Ld. CIT (A), tried to discuss the merits of the matter also based on the documents available on record and considering the order of the AO. It is observed that the assessee produced before us the plethora of documents alongwith judicial pronouncements in her favour.
5. We have gone though the documents furnished by the assessee in her favour, e.g. Bank Statement, Copies of IKRARNAMA, Copy of her husband’s income tax computation etc. Certainly, these documents have a bearing on the matter of the assessee, but not produced before the Ld. CIT (A) hence could not be considered by the Ld. CIT (A). In view of the above, we deem it fit to give another opportunity to the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A), resultantly, we restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to hear the matter again after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and simultaneously the assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment and produce all the relevant material, she wants to be relied upon.
In the result, based on the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th day of September 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaipur, िदनांक/Dated: 15/09/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. आयकर आयु� CIT 3. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., Sr.DR., ITAT, 5. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.