Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold a property, declared capital gains, and claimed deduction u/s 54 for investment in multiple houses. However, the AO found investment in only one property and consequently made additions u/s 45 for capital gains and u/s 69A for unexplained cash/deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity before the AO and expired during the CIT(A) proceedings. With no objection from the DR, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee's legal heir.
Key Issues
Lack of adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee/legal heir, dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution, computation of long-term capital gain, and addition of unexplained cash/deposits.
Sections Cited
45, 54, 69A, 143(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US
Appellant by : Shri Lakshay Bhudiraja, CA Respondent by : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 29.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 29.10.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.01.2024, relating to assessment year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-
1. That, on the facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
2. That, on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,95,50,920/- worked out u/s. 45 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without examining the facts available on record.
3. That, on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,85,26,550/- worked out u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 without examining the facts available on record.
4. That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify substitute, add to, abridge and / and or rescind any or all of the above grounds.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an individual and filed original Return of Income on 30/07/2014 in ITR-1 declaring total income of Rs.6,72,090/-. Subsequently, on the same day, the assessee filed Revised Return of income in Form lTR-2 declaring total income of Rs.7,57,230/-. The assessee has returned salary income of Rs.7,51,580/- and income from other sources amounting to Rs.1,60,449/-. The assessee has also shown Long-Term Capital gain of Rs.2,82,28,063/- and claimed deduction of Rs.2,88,92,000 u/s 54. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2016 determining the total income at Rs.3,88,34,700/-. While completing the assessment, the AO made the following additions. The AO noticed that the assessee has sold a house property No.3/83, Nirankari Colony, Delhi at a total consideration of Rs.3,10,00,000 to Sant Nirankari Mandal on 06/11/2013. In the computation of Capital Gain filed during assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that whole of it was eligible for deduction u/s 54 on account of investment in 6 other houses. The AO observed that the assessee has purchased only one property i.e. on 04/07/2014 at a consideration of Rs.56,20,250/- which confirmed to the requirements of section 54. The AO determined the Net Capital Gain as under:-
Total Sales Consideration Rs.3,10,00,000 Less: i. Indexed Cost of acquisition computed by Rs. 58,28,830 assessee ii.Cost of house purchased on 04.07.2014 Rs. 56,20,250 Rs. 1,14,49,080 Net Capital Gain Rs.1,95,50,920 2