P VIDYA,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-2, KUMBAKONAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 350/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 March 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to substantiate her claim for deduction under Section 54F. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F for investing in a residential house after selling immovable properties. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, and the CIT(A) also denied it without providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present her case for deduction under Section 54F before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 17.03.2020Pronounced: 17.03.2020

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy in appeal No.I.T.A. No.242/2015-16/CIT(A)-1/TRY dated 01.11.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.

2 -: 2. Mr. N. Arjunraj, Chartered Accountant for Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is an individual who had sold certain immovable properties and had invested in residential house at Neelangarai. It was a submission that in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee on multiple grounds. It was a submission that on appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not allowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was a submission that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not granted the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate her claim. It was a submission that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to substantiate her claim in respect of the deduction u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4.

In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

5.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6.

In Ground No.5 of the assessee’s appeal, the assessee had claimed that the assessee had not been granted proper opportunity before passing the impugned order. A perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that the arguments of the learned Authorized Representative in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F is not coming out of the said order. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issue in this appeal in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-adjudication after

4 -: granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate her case.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th March, 2020 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 →