ABRAHAM M. KADEKKETH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 403/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 June 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide complete details before the lower authorities. However, considering the assessee was not given sufficient time, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F for long-term capital gains from land sale, investing in a capital gains account scheme. The Assessing Officer rejected the exemption due to lack of evidence, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-appearance and failure to provide details.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F when sufficient opportunity and time were not provided to furnish complete documentation before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 250(6),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. MANJUNATHA,

Hearing: 19/06/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld CIT(A)-28, Mumbai, dated 18/10/2016 and it pertains to AY-2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

2 Abraham M Kadekketh, Prop. Santosh Travels & Hotel Santosh Your appellant being dissatisfied with order dated 18-10-2016 passed by the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-28 ,Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds. 1] The order dated 18-10-2016 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by CIT (A) is bad in law and illegal. The CIT (A) has erred both the facts and in law. It is submitted that the additions be deleted now. 2] The CIT (A) has erred on both the facts and in law. The addition made by the Income Tax Officer of Rs 99,00,0007- u/s 54F(para 5 of the asstt. order) has not been deleted by the CIT (A). It is submitted that the additions be deleted now. 3] Further it is requested not to start penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1) (c) and to the IT Act. 1961 till the conclusion of this appeal proceedings.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of recruitment agency of skilled and unskilled workers, filed his return of income for Assessment year 2012-13 on 04/03/2013, declaring total income of Rs.29,63,988/-.

During the year under consideration, the assessee has computed Long term capital gain arising from sale of land and after claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act, in respect of amount invested in capital gains account scheme shown NIL income under the head Long Term Capital Gain.

3.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary details in respect of sale of property and also proof of purchases along with investment in capital gains account scheme. The assessee has furnished partial information and sought more time to file further information on the ground that the relevant information needs to be collected from his home town Kerala. The AO, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, re-computed long-term capital gain from sale of property and rejected exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act, on the ground that 3 Abraham M Kadekketh, Prop. Santosh Travels & Hotel Santosh the assessee has failed to file any evidence including agreement and valuation report despite being given opportunity.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT)A) the assessee has filed written submissions on 15/06/2016 and claimed that capital asset has been transferred on 07/04/2011 and entire consideration from sale of land is invested in capital gain savings account with central bank of India. The case is adjourned to 17/10/2016. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any details on the date of hearing, therefore, the ld CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis of information available on record by holding that the assessee is not even bothered to attend on the date of hearing to file necessary details and to justify its claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Learned AO in re-computation of capital gain after rejection of the exemption and hence confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

6.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts borne out from the record clearly indicates that even before the Ld. AO, the assessee could not file complete details in respect of amount invested in capital gains account deposit scheme in order to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act. Although, the assessee sought more time to file necessary details, the AO has completed assessment on the basis

4 Abraham M Kadekketh, Prop. Santosh Travels & Hotel Santosh of partial information supplied by the assessee. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear and filed necessary details to justify his claim. Although, the assessee has filed details with regard to investment in capital gain deposits scheme, but other details with regard to cost of acquisition was not furnished before the lower authorities. Therefore considering the facts that the assessee was not given sufficient time to file necessary details before the lower authorities, we are of the considered view that this issue needs to be set-aside to the file of Ld. AO to consider afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file necessary details before the AO to justify his claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act, including details of cost of acquisition of the property. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7.

More judgments on Section 54F

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →