MUNNA KUMAR,SIWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 557/PAT/2022Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 January 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issue of applicability of Section 50C and the claim under Section 54 were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Considering the interests of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions on account of capital gains and enhancement under Section 50C was filed with a delay of 47 days. The assessee claimed that the sale was pursuant to a 2014 agreement, making Section 50C inapplicable, and also claimed deduction under Section 54.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable when the sale deed is executed after the agreement date, and whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Shikesh Jha, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Munna Kumar ………….. Appellant C/o Late Kishunji Prasad, Near Post Office Ram Rajya More, Siwan-821226. (PAN: ASEPK6842Q) Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Shikesh Jha, Advocate Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 20.01.2025 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.08.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT (A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

This appeal is time barred by 47 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the averments made in the said application and the shortness of the delay, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and the same is taken up for hearing.

I.T.A. No.: 557/PAT/2022 Munna Kumar, AY : 2017-18

3.

The assessee is this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of capital gains earned by the assessee on sale of property and also enhancement of the same by invoking the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the AO has made the impugned addition only on the basis of bald information received from the land revenue authorities and without examining the actual sale deed and other relevant documents. However, the plea of the assessee was that the property in question was sold in pursuance to an agreement to sale dated 15.07.2014 whereby, the sale price of the property was settled in 2014, though the property in question was sold in the year 2016, therefore, the provisions of sec. 50C of the Act were not applicable. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that even the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 of the Act on account of purchase of a residential plot and construction of residential house thereupon. He has further submitted that though the assessee had made the aforesaid submissions, however, the documents furnished by the assessee might either were not properly uploaded or have not been considered by the lower authorities. He has submitted that the assessee has a fair case on merits and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to bring the true and correct factual position before the lower authorities.

5.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and also going through the records, we find that in this case though, the assessee has pleaded that the sale deed was executed pursuant to an agreement dated 15.07.2014 and the assessee has also made claim u/s. 54 of the Act but, the issue has not been properly examined and adjudicated by the lower authorities. In view of this, considering the interests of justice, in Page 2 of 3

I.T.A. No.: 557/PAT/2022 Munna Kumar, AY : 2017-18 our view, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO as it has been held time and again that the Income Tax Authorities should charge only the legitimate taxes from the tax payers and that the tax payer should not be punished for their bona fide errors or mistakes. In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. Needless to say, the AO will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →