Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order
passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,
Tiruchirappalli dated 01.02.2017 in ITA No.82/2013-14/CIT(A-
2)/TRY for the assessment year 2010-11 passed u/s.250(6)
r.w.s.144 of the Act.
The assessee has raised several grounds in her appeal,
however the crux of the issue argued before us was that the
2 ITA No.890/Mds/2017
Revenue had denied the benefit of deduction U/s.54F of the Act
to the assessee even though she was entitled for the same and
further erred by making addition towards unexplained investment
of Rs.5,81,200/-.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an
individual earning income from salary, filed her return of income
for the assessment year 2010-11 on 16.07.2010 admitting total
income of Rs.1,75,350/-. Initially the return was processed
u/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for
scrutiny and finally assessment order was passed U/s. 144 of the
Act on 28.03.2013, wherein the Ld.AO denied the benefit of
deduction under Section 54F of the Act and thereby computed
the Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee at Rs.3,06,058/-
and also made addition of Rs.5,81,200/- as unexplained
investment.
During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was
observed by the Ld.AO that the land belonging to the assessee
was acquired by the Government, wherein she received
compensation of Rs.4,20,025/- after deducting TDS of
3 ITA No.890/Mds/2017
Rs.42,003/-. The assessee had explained before the Ld.AO that
subsequently she had purchased a residential property for
Rs.9,00,000/-. Since the assessee had not provided sufficient
materials to justify her claim for deduction U/s.54F of the Act and
further did not furnish details about the source of investment for
Rs.5,81,200/- in the newly acquired property, the Ld.AO denied
the benefit of Section 54F of the Act to the assessee and made
addition of Rs.5,81,200/- as unexplained investment by passing
an ex-parte order.
The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Ld.AO
because even before him, the assessee was not able to
substantiate her claim.
At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us that one more
opportunity may be provided to the assessee in order to present
the case before the Ld.AO, because she is in possession of all
the documents required for substantiating her claim. The Ld.DR
strongly opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR.
4 ITA No.890/Mds/2017 8. After hearing both sides, I do not find much force in the argument advanced by the Ld.AR. However, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration there by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 05th October, 2017 at Chennai.
Sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (A. Mohan Alankamony) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated 05th October, 2017 RSR आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF