V.S.RAJKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – IV, Chennai, dated

08.09.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

2 I.T.A. No.1133/Mds/16

submitted that there was a delay of 505 days in filing the appeal

before this Tribunal. According to the Ld. representative, the

assessee claims deduction under Section 54F of the Income-tax

Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). However, the Assessing Officer

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground the assessee

was having more than one house. Referring to the order of the

Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), for the assessment year

2007-08, the Ld. representative submitted that in the wealth-tax

proceeding, the very same property at 52, Beemanna Mudali

Garden Street, Chennai, was taken as commercial asset and it was

exempt from Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, the commercial asset

cannot be taken as house of the assessee for considering the

disallowance under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.counsel has

also filed a letter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board showing that the

building in question is used for commercial purpose. The letter said

to be obtained from Corporation Chennai under Right to Information

Act was also filed before this Tribunal to show that the property was

used for commercial purpose. In view of these facts, according to

the Ld. representative, there was reasonable cause on the part of

the assessee in not filing appeal before this Tribunal.

3 I.T.A. No.1133/Mds/16

representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee could

not file appeal in time. When the assessee met Shri P.S.

Prabhakar, Chartered Accountant, in connection with penalty

proceedings, it was brought to his notice that an appeal against the

order of the CIT(Appeals) was not filed before this Tribunal even

though the same property was treated as commercial property in

wealth-tax proceeding. Therefore, according to the Ld.

representative, there was a reasonable cause on the part of the

assessee for not filing the appeal within the time provided. The Ld.

representative further submitted that when the property was treated

as commercial property under the wealth-tax proceeding, the same

property cannot be treated as house property under the income-tax

proceeding. In view of this conflicting finding of authorities below,

the matter needs to be resolved by this Tribunal, therefore, the

assessee has a merit in the appeal. Hence, a lenient view needs to

be taken for condoning the delay.

Representative also. According to the Ld. D.R., there was no

4 I.T.A. No.1133/Mds/16

reasonable cause for not filing the appeal before this Tribunal within

the stipulated period, therefore, the delay cannot be condoned.

perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in

dispute that there was a delay of 505 days in filing the appeal.

From the material available on record it appears that Commissioner

Wealth Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 26.11.2015, found that the

property at 52, Beemanna Mudali Garden Street, Chennai was used

for business of the assessee, therefore, it is exempted from the

purview of Wealth Tax Act. The assessee appears to have one Shri

P.S. Prabhakar, Chartered Accountant in respect of penalty

proceeding initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At that time

it was brought to the notice of the assessee that Shri P.S.

Prabhakar has not filed appeal against the order of the

CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion

that when the property was found to be used in the business of the

assessee under the wealth-tax proceeding, how the very same

property can be considered as house property while claiming

exemption under Section 54F of the Act needs to be examined.

Since the assessee could not file the appeal against the order of the

5 I.T.A. No.1133/Mds/16

CIT(Appeals) and the fact of non-filing of the appeal was brought to

the notice of the assessee by Shri P.S. Prabhakar, Chartered

Accountant, in the course of penalty proceeding under Section

271(1)(c) of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that

there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not

filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the delay of

505 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal of

the assessee is admitted.

filed copies of order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-

14, Chennai, the letter of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and also

from the Corporation of Chennai. These documents were not

available before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal is of

the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by

the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities

below are set aside and the issue of claim of exemption under

Section 54F of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing

Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue afresh in

the light of the material available on record and that may be filed by

6 I.T.A. No.1133/Mds/16

the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Order pronounced on 28th October, 2016 at Chennai.

sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member

चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 28th October, 2016.

Kri.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A)-IV, Chennai 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT-IV, Chennai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.