MURALIDHARAN UMMANATH,TAMILNADU vs. ACIT 35(2), MUMBAI

The Registry has pointed out a delay of 09 days in filing the appeal. Learned Authorized Representative explained before us that the date of communication of the ld.

On perusal of the materials on record, we find that in Column No. 12 of Form No. 36, the assessee has wrongly mentioned the date of order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as the date of communication of the order, instead of mentioning the date of receipt of the order by the assessee. Thus, there being no delay in filing the appeal the defect pointed out by the Registry is ignored and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merit.

At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that on the instruction of the client, he does not want to press Ground Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the ld. AR, ground nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed.

In Ground no. 3 the assessee has raised the issue of double taxation of an amount of Rs.10,05,000/-. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 02.12.2012 declaring total income of Rs.42,02,460/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold a plot of land in Bangalore and derived long term capital gain of Rs.5043710/-. However, the assessee claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act of the capital gain. In the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer while examining the claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.54 of the Act,

Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- held in capital gains account by the assessee was withdrawn in the subsequent assessment year, i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 and the assessee has offered the said amount along with the interest to tax. He submitted, while computing the capital gain in the impugned assessment year, the assessee’s claim of deduction in respect of the amount of Rs.10,05,000/- was disallowed. Thus, effectively, the amount of Rs.10,05,000/- was brought to tax in two assessment years, i.e., the impugned assessment year as well as in assessment year 2013-14 amounting to double taxation of the same income. In support of such contention, the ld. AR brought to our notice the computation of income and return of income filed for assessment year 2013-14. The copies of bank pass book of capital gain account with SBI and copy of statement of account with ICICI Bank. He, therefore, submitted that the issue can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying assessee’s claim and considering the income for taxation in one assessment year.

The ld. Departmental Representative, though, submitted that the issue was never raised before the departmental authorities, however, he has no objection if a direction is issued to the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify assessee’s claim vis-à- vis the documentary evidences filed and if upon such verification it is found that the amount of Rs.10,05,000/- was assessed twice, i.e., in the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, then consequential relief should be given to the assessee by excluding the Shri Muralidharan Ummanath amount of Rs.10,05,000/- from the income of the assessee in the assessment year 2013- 14. This is for the reason that the same income cannot be assessed twice. With the aforesaid observations, the ground raised is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.