RAMAMURTHY , CHENNAI V. ACIT , NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 15 (1), CHENNAI

ITA 1087/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Ramamurthy against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the AO's decision disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed an exemption for the purchase of a new residential land and construction thereon, which was contested by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on the grounds that the construction was not completed within the stipulated time and the sale proceeds were not deposited in a capital gains account. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the CIT(A)'s handling of the appeal, specifically the failure to obtain a remand report as previously requested.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135009 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी महावीर ᳲसह,उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल,लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1087/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Ramamurthy, No.T-57-B, 32 nd Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. PAN: AEIPR 3351M v. The ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 15(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047270584(1) dated 14.11.2022. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 15(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated 21.12.2016. 2 ITA No.1087/Chny/2022 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in disallowing exemption claimed by assessee u/s.54F of the Act. For this assessee has raised various grounds, which are argumentative in nature and hence, need not be reproduced. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing stated that the CIT(A) has called for remand report vide letter No. ITA No.279/CIT(A)-15/2016-17 dated 16.04.2018, as he has referred back the written submissions and evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings by the assessee. The ld.counsel stated that the appeal before CIT(A) was ultimately referred to NFAC, Delhi and decided the appeal of assessee without calling for remand report as by his predecessor. The CIT(A) decided the appeal vide order dated 14.11.2022. Hence, he requested that matter may be referred back to the file of the CIT(A) or he suggested that matter can go back to the file of the AO who will examine the claim u/s. 54F of the Act. He narrated the facts that the assessee purchased land at Kapivakkam Hamlet in Gangadevankuppam Village, Kanchipuram District on 01.08.2013. The assessee sold property on 13.08.2010 with a consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by claiming that the assessee has purchased 3 ITA No.1087/Chny/2022 another residential land on 01.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.99,00,000/- and constructed house thereon at Rs.79,95,996/- including Rs.4,00,000/- as brokerage charges. The assessee also claimed that he has incurred incidental expenses of Rs.1,98,000/- and Rs.12,49,200/- towards stamp duty charges. The AO disallowed the claim of exemption only on the reason that the assessee did not complete the construction within the time limit provided u/s.54F of the Act and even the sale proceeds were not deposited in capital gains account. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO on the same reasoning. 4. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR that the predecessor CIT(A) has required remand report and whether the AO has given remand report, he could not answer the same but he also stated that matter can be referred back to the file of the AO to examine in detail the written submissions and evidences filed by assessee before CIT(A) for which the predecessor CIT(A) has asked for remand report vide letter dated 16.04.2018. 5. In term of the above, after hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the CIT(A) should have called for remand report before deciding the issue as the CIT(A) [predecessor] has already 4 ITA No.1087/Chny/2022 required for remand report from the AO vide letter dated 16.04.2018. Since this was not done, we remand this matter back to the file of the AO, who will examine the details and then decide the issue of claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act, as per law. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11 th July, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 11 th July, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.