Singireddy Chilakamma, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-15(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 165/Hyd/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6612 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) ITA No.165/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt. Singireddy Chilakamma, (Rep. by her legal heir Mr. S. Anji Reddy) Hyderabad. PAN FNSPS0164R .....Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(4), Hyderabad. .....Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Ms. Matta Padma. (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 08.12.2021. Date of Pronouncement :10.12.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2007-08 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad’s order dt.30.11.2015 passed in case No.1054/CIT(A)-7/2014-15 in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2 ITA No.165/Hyd/2016 Case called twice. None appeared at assessee's behest. We proceed accordingly exparte. Case file perused. 2. The assessee's sole substantive grievance challenges both the lower authorities’ action disallowing her 54F deduction claim along with cost of acquisition of the capital asset in issue during the course of assessment framed on 13.2.2015 and upheld in the CIT(A) order as under : -- Space left intentionally -- 3 ITA No.165/Hyd/2016 4 ITA No.165/Hyd/2016 3. We note with the able assistance coming form the Revenue side that the assessee had neither filed any details of having reinvested capital gains in issue in the specified residential property nor she had placed on record the corresponding details of the cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981. We make it clear that the CIT(A) has already granted relief to the extent of Rs.20 per sq. yard. Faced with 5 ITA No.165/Hyd/2016 this situation, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action in part in foregoing terms. 4. This assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th Dec., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.10.12.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Smt. Singireddy Chilakamma, 1-9-184, Kushaiguda, Kapra, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District, Hyderabad-500 062 2. ITO, Ward 15(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T-7,9- Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-7, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.