Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
These are the cross appeals preferred by the assessee as well as Revenue against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.06.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 (Assessee’s appeal)
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not file the necessary details before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that though the case was completely ex-parte before the ld. CIT (A) due to outbreak of fire in the premises of the assessee. However, certain details were filed before the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that there are two effective issue raised by the assessee (i) is for allowing deduction u/s 24A and 24B aggregating to ₹95,75,028/- and (ii), restricting the disallowance u/s 14A read with section 8D of the Rules to the actual amount of dividend income earned during the year. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of J.B. Patel & Co. Vs. DCIT (2009) 118 ITD 556 (Ahmedabad- ITAT) so far as the deduction u/s 24A and 24B of the Act are concerned. So far as the second issue is concerned, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the issue is no longer res-Integra and the disallowance to be confined to the amount of exempt during the year.
The ld. DR on the other hand, strongly opposed to the arguments of the ld. Authorized Representative by submitting that the case was totally non-represented before the ld. CIT (A), and therefore, same may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) instead of ld. AO.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the issue at hand required to be examined in the level of the ld. AO. Insofar as the first issue is A.Y. 2012-13 (Revenue’s Appeal):
Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by allowing the claim of the assessee of Rs. 5,46,83,932/- for deduction under section 54 of the Act despite the non-existence of any residential property on the plot of land sold by the assessee? 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law by failing to provide opportunity to the assessing officer to cross-examine the documents produced by the assessee before him in contravention of Rule 46A of the income Tax Rules, 1962?
6. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) allowing the claim of the assessee of ₹5,46,83,932/- u/s 54 of the Act despite non-existence of residential property on the plot of land sold by the assessee and the issue in ground no. 2 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) failing to provide the opportunity to the AO to cross examine the documents produced by the assessee before him in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 (the Rules).
The facts in brief are that a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 24.01.2012 in the office and residential premises of the assessee. The assessee filed the return of income for
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the ld. AO to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act as the assessee had already constructed the residential house on the said land over a period of time and the expenses incurred by the assessee in different assessment years commencing from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12, were accepted by the revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2024.