Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एसएस िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Vs. The ACIT/Dy. Commissioner of No. 30, Aadijan Street, Income Tax, Mandaveli 600 028, Chennai. Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai. [PAN: AHCPN5701A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. & Ms. Sailas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) /Addl/JCIT (A)-3, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of six days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the 2 I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/24
reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned.
The assessee raised 14 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in not considering a new plea seeking benefit under section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
We note that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 17.07.2019, wherein, the CPC accepted the said return under section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 16.11.2019, against which, the assessee instituted first appeal on 21.11.2013 with a delay of 635 days. We note that the assessee raised additional ground by stating that the assessee was prevented in claiming re-investment under section 54F of the Act, by mutual mistake of previous Authorized Representative of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional ground by stating that no capital gain was declared in the return of income and hence, additional ground raised by the assessee does not arise at all.
Before us, the ld. AR Shri K. Subramaniam, CA drew our attention to paper book containing 44 pages and submits that the matter may be 3 I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/24
remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act.
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT vehemently opposed the same and submits that the assessee declared income of ₹.5,10,640/- under the head “business or profession” and accordingly, the CPC accepted the same. He drew our attention to page 4 of the intimation order passed by the CPC and submits that there was no liability standing on the assessee to pay any taxes as on today. The ld. DR submits that the assessee now wants to change the head of income, which is not permissible under law and supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that no capital gain was declared in the return of income. The income declared therein on profit from “business or profession”. Before us, the ld. AR submits that due to mistake by the previous authorized representative and the assessee, the capital gain deduction under section 54F of the Act could not be claimed in the return of income. He placed reliance in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) and argued that this Tribunal has ample power to direct the Assessing Officer to consider new plea of deduction under section 54F of the Act. We note that admittedly, no capital gain was shown in the return
4 I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/24
of income and no claim also made under section 54F of the Act. Had the assessee been declared capital gain in the return of income and no claim under section 54F of the Act thereon, this Tribunal would have directed the Assessing Officer to consider the same by taking support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra). As discussed above, the assessee himself declared income under the head “business or profession” and no capital gain admitted. Therefore, having no declaration of capital gain in the return of income, directing the Assessing Officer to consider the claim under section 54/54F of the Act, does not arise. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld. DR that there is no tax liability standing in the hands of the assessee, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 21st August, 2024 at Chennai. (JAGADISH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 21.08.2024 Vm/-
5 I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/24
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant, 2.""थ"/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु"/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड" फाईल/GF.