SH. BHUPINDER SINGH,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that tax authorities should assist assessees with bona fide mistakes and that legal claims not made before lower authorities can be made before appellate authorities. The AO was directed to examine the Section 54F/54B claim.
What were the facts?
The assessee was a co-sharer in a plot sold during the year. The Assessing Officer calculated capital gains based on a 1/5th share, while the assessee claimed a 2/15th share and exemption under Section 54F. The CIT(A) accepted the 2/15th share but rejected the exemption as it was not claimed in the return.
What were the issues?
Whether an exemption under Section 54F/54B can be granted even if not claimed in the original return of income. The correct share of the assessee in the sale consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
आदेश/Order
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.06.2019passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, (Camp office at Panchkula), Ludhiana for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
-Chd-2021 Bhupinder Singh, Yamunanagar 2 2. The Assessee in this appeal has taken following effective grounds of appeal:
1. That the orders of ld. CIT(A) are illegal, erroneous and perverse and thus needs to be quashed.
2. That the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in concurring with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, while confirming the quantum addition to the extent of Rs. 12,89,513/- and taxes imposed by Assessing Officer without considering the facts and circumstances and the contentions of the appellant and also without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the Assessee despite notice. However, a perusal of the case file and record reveals that the small issue is involved in this appeal which can be effectively decided after hearing the ld. DR. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal of the Assessee on merit.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a co-sharer in a plot which was sold during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) calculated the share of the Assessee as 1/5th share in the said plot and charged the sale consideration to capital gains tax. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal -Chd-2021 Bhupinder Singh, Yamunanagar 3 before the ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that the share of the Assessee was 2/15thin the sold property and not 1/5th as determined by the A.O. The Assessee has further taken the plea that the Assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
So far as the plea with regard to the share of the Assessee in the said property was concerned, the ld. CIT(A) directed to rework the Long Term Capital Gain by taking the sale consideration at Rs. 12,89,513/- being 2/15th share in the total sale consideration and according allowed the said ground of appeal. However, so far as the claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s 54F / 54B is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that the Assessee had not claimed the same in the return of income.
6. It has been held time and again that the income Tax authorities should charge legitimate tax from the tax payers. It has also been held time and again that if the Assessee has failed to make a claim in the return of income, to which he is otherwise entitled to, the A.O. should assist such an Assessee to make proper claim. The Income Tax Authorities should not penalize the taxpayers for their bona fide mistakes. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case -Chd-2021 Bhupinder Singh, Yamunanagar 4 of ‘NTPC vs. CIT’ 229 ITR 383, has held that a bonafide /legal claim which could not be made before the lower authorizes, can be made before the appellate authority. In view of this, we direct he A.O. to examine the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction u/s 54F /54B, as the case may be, and if the Assessee is found entitled to the same, the same may be granted to the Assessee, irrespective of the fact that the same was not claimed in the return of income.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
