P.BASKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2962/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 April 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back for fresh decision. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant material and comply with the requirements of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under section 54F. The AO denied the deduction as the assessee owned more than one property other than the new asset and made an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F and whether the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) is justified, considering the opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 23.03.2021Pronounced: 27.04.2021

PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, in ITA No.54/CIT(A)-16/2015-16 dated 09.08.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Shri P. Baskar, the assessee, is a non-resident and has filed his return of income for A.Y 2015-16 claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the 2 -: Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer (A.O) found, inter alia, that the assessee owning more than one property other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset and hence held that he is not eligible for the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. He further made an addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The case was heard through video conferencing. The Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee has taken various grounds, the essential issues are on the computation of long term capital gain, allowance of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and the addition made u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. A.R invited our attention and submitted that since, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue without hearing the assessee, one more opportunity may be given before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the issues are decided on merits.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. D.R submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) posted the case for hearing on 26.04.2018, 30.05.2018 and 16.07.2018. But none appeared, nor represented of the case or any written submission was made to substantiate the grounds of appeal. In the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) correctly decided the issue and hence, he supported the order

3 -: of the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) adjourned the matter at the instance of the C.A in the first hearing and there was no further notices issued for hearing of appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant 5. material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal holding that he posted the case for hearing on various dates, but non appeared nor represented the case. However, the assessee pleads that the impugned appeal was decided without giving an opportunity. Therefore, it was pleaded that at last one effective opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) would ensure deciding the issues on merits thereby substantial justice would be rendered. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit this issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision. The assessee shall furnish relevant material in support of his contention and comply with the requirements of the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law in such a way that the appeal is decided early. The Ld. CIT(A) on due examination of them and after affording due opportunity to the assessee decide the issues in accordance with law.

4 -: 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on the day of 27th April, 2021 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →