LATE JOSEPH GEORGE ASHOK GEORGE VARRAKUNNEL REP. BY LEGAL HEIR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12.

The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the Assessing Officer denied claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and drew our attention to page 3 of the assessment order. Further, he referred to page 18 of the paper book and submits that the assessee furnished the details with regard to the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act and no consideration was given by the Assessing Officer. By referring to para 2 at page 19 of the paper book, he argued that the details therein were also furnished to the ld. CIT(A) and no consideration was given by the ld. CIT(A) as well. Regarding the addition made under section 68 of the Act, he requested to direct the Assessing Officer to examine the bank statement for the consideration of deposits and withdrawals. He prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as the assessee is ready to furnish every details before the Assessing Officer.

The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT submits that the ld. CIT(A) considered the details as submitted by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) not satisfied in respect of the details furnished by the assessee, denied exemption under section 54 of the Act. She referred to para 7.3.1 of the impugned order and argued that no purpose would serve if this matter is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer as all the details were already furnished before the first appellate authority and she vehemently opposed the request of the ld. AR in seeking to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. She supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.

Having heard both the parties, it is noted that admittedly, the Assessing Officer asked for details regarding cash deposits as well as claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act, which is evident from page 2 & 3 of the assessment order. Further, it is also evident that according to the Assessing Officer no satisfactory explanation was offered for the cash deposits, the addition under section 68 of the Act and further, no evidence produced in respect of reinvestment relevant to the claim under section 54 of the Act. On examination of the impugned order, it is noted that the assessee filed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A) on three occasions and the same are placed at pages 3, 8 & 9 of the paper book and we find no reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of such submissions in the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration for expeditious disposal keeping in view the assessment year 2011-12 (FY 2010-11) being old, and the assessee shall furnish all relevant materials to complete the assessment proceedings, otherwise, in case the assessee fails to co-operate, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to complete the assessment in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th January, 2026 at Chennai.