SH. AROON KUMAR SINHA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058598983(1), dated 08.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have firstly computed the assessee’s long-term capital gains amounting to Rs. 53,32,900/- after adopting sale consideration as Rs.60.50 lakhs than that declared of Rs.60.26 lakhs, and, thereafter, rejected his claim of section 54 deduction (originally raised) and latter on sought under section 54F of the Act; for want of a revised return, in light of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), in the course of assessment framed on 28.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

Mr. Rana vehemently argues the Revenue’s case in support of the impugned computation and disallowance that both the learned authorities have rightly rejected the assessee’s corresponding twin submissions. 5. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned Assessing Officer in fact framed his section 144 best assessment on 28.12.2017 rejecting the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim, earlier sought under section 54F for not filing a revised return.

Coming to the CIT(A)/NFAC lower appellate discussion, we note from a perusal of para 5.2 onwards at page 4 that the case was sent for the Assessing Officer’s remand report who did not agree again for want of the cogent supportive evidence from assessee side.