PALLAVI EKNATH GHULE,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 829/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 June 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54B for purchasing a plot of land, which the AO disallowed, stating it was not agricultural land. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's written submissions and whether the land purchased qualified for deduction under Section 54B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah
For Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha
Hearing: 13.06.2024Pronounced: 13.06.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore dated 21.02.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving Income from other sources, House Property etc. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was filed on 22.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.77,280/- after claiming deduction u/s.54B of the Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 18.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.15,26,720/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.54B amounting to Rs.14,49,444/- on the ground that the assessee had not purchased the agricultural but a plot of land.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

The ld. AR submits that the CIT(A) though extracted the written submissions made by the assessee, had failed to dwell into those written submissions. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of CIT(A).

6.

On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for remand of the matter.

7.

I heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Considering the fact that the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee had not gone through the written submissions, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order by dwelling into the written submissions filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee may be given due opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. I order accordingly.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of June, 2024.

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →