P.RAJAMANICKAM,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 3, NAMAKKAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1225/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 October 2019AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for the sale of a property, but the Assessing Officer (AO) denied it due to insufficient details regarding construction costs. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing an effective opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an effective opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The validity of the deduction claim under Section 54F was also an underlying issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 08.07.2019Pronounced: 03.10.2019

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem in 18 dated 08.03.2019 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Shri P. Rajamanickam, the assessee, is an individual carrying on the business in the names of M/s. P.R.M. Petroleum Agencies and M/s. P.R.M. Tyres. While making the assessment for :-2-: 2009-10, the AO inter-alia, made addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) on sale of car. Further, the assessee sold a property and claimed deduction U/s.54F. The AO required to furnish full and complete details of construction amount. Since, the assessee failed to furnish, the AO held that the assessee has not constructed any residential house during the eligible period and therefore, the AO refused to allow the deduction claim U/s.54F at Rs.27,90,653/-. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

While the case was taken up for hearing, none appeared from the assessee’s side. The ld.DR submitted that it is seen from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that none appeared from the assessee’s side and hence the ld.CIT(A) disposed the appeal based on the materials on record. Since, the assessee has not appeared before this Hon’ble Tribunal, the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be confirmed.

4.

We heard the ld.DR and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has mentioned that the appellant has filed written submission on 06.03.2019 and simply stated that the same

:-3-: may be taken on record and the case be decided accordingly. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal without any opportunity to the assessee. Since, the appeal is decided without hearing the assessee, we deem it fit to remit the issues back to the ld.CIT(A) for deciding the case on merit after affording effective opportunity to the assessee. While doing so, the CIT(A) may, if he thinks it fit, require the AO concerned to make appropriate enquiry as per sub-section 4 of Section 250 and after furnishing a copy of such report to the assessee and affording effective opportunity, may decide the issues in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the court on 3rd October, 2019 at 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 →