DAYA RAM,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3406/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 November 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee's section 54F deduction claim was neither discussed nor rejected in the original assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the section 54F deduction claim, with the assessee to be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove the claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment for AY 2012-13, initiated under section 147 read with 143(3), where the AO made a long-term capital gain addition and rejected a section 54B deduction. The CIT(A) upheld a disallowance of Rs.1,97,275/- and declined the assessee's claim for section 54F deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of Section 54F deduction, which was not discussed or rejected in the original assessment order, requires fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 54B,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 11.11.2024Pronounced: 14.11.2024

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Daya Ram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 38, Old Mohan Puri, Ward-2(1), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh PAN :AFWPR8788K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Satinder Mittal, Advocate Department by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 14.11.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064186528(1), dated 18.04.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that learned Assessing Officer had framed his assessment dated 29.12.2019 making long term capital gain addition of Rs.19,62,675/- thereby also rejecting section 54B deduction claim as well as the alleged cost incurred in cash to the tune of Rs.1,97,275/- in question year 2008-09. The assessee thereafter preferred his appeal before the CIT(A), wherein his claim of section 54F deduction stands declined on the one hand and the said latter disallowance of Rs.1,97,275/- has been upheld.

4.

Learned counsel submits in this factual backdrop that both the lower authorities have erred in law and facts in denying section 54F deduction to the assessee amounting to Rs.29.95 lakhs, which very well exceeds long term capital gains in question of Rs.16,81,585/-. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee’s section 54F deduction has neither been discussed, nor rejected in the assessment order and, therefore, I am of the considered view that the same requires to be adjudicated afresh by the Assessing Officer as per law. Order accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →