Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel, Vadodara V. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

ITA 655/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5603 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHESH RAJESH REVAR
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 655/Ahd/2024 (िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assess ment Year : 2016-17) Bh up en dr ab h ai Pu nj ab ha i Pa tel Nea r To we rs D ab ha sa, T al : Pa dra , Va do da ra, G uja ra t, 39 14 40 बनाम बनामबनाम बनाम/ V s . As sis ta nt Co mmi s s io ner of In co me T ax Cir cl e- 1( 3), B ar od a ᭭थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A M G P P 7 7 7 2 G (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Sanjay R Shah, AR ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ashesh Rajesh Revar, Sr. DR D a t e o f H e a r i n g 23/07/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 26/07/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC), Delhi, (i n short ‘the CIT( A) ’) dated 06.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the claim of the Appellant for deduction us. 54F of the IT. Act, 1951 for a sum of Rs.75,80,923/-. The Learned CIT(Appeals) confirmed the same by passing an ex-parte order. It is submitted that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient chase in not being able to file his written ITA No. 655/Ahd/2024 [Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 – submissions before CIT(Appeals), and hence, the matter may please be restored to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication denovo, 2. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 above, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the claim of the Appellant for deduction u/s 54F for Rs. 75,80,923/-and Learned CTT(Appeals) erred in confirming the said disallowance. It is submitted that Appellant is entitled to deduction u/s 54F for Rs.75,80,923/- and the same be allowed to him.” 3. There is a dela y o f 125 da ys in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for dela y. It has been sub mitted that the asses see was not a te chno savvy person and the notices sent by the Ld. CI T(A) on his email id and also on the departmental portal had escaped his notice which led to non-compliance before the Ld. CI T(A). For the sa me reason, there was a dela y i n filing of present appeal as well. Considering the fact that there was no co mpliance of the assessee before the Ld. CI T(A) and t he reason as explained, the dela y in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Shri Sanja y R. Sh ah, Ld . AR of the assessee explained that the Ld. CI T( A) had confir med the order of the AO in li mine without considering the details furnished by the assessee in the state ment of facts attached in For m No.35 of the appeal me mo. He sub mitted that the Ld. CI T( A) was not correct in dis missing the appeal of the assessee without exa mining the merits of the case. He has r elied upon the decision of Hon ’ble Bomba y High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pre mkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) , [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 ( Bomba y). The Ld. AR re quested to ITA No. 655/Ahd/2024 [Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 – restore the matte r to the file of the Ld. CI T( A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 5. Shri Ashish Rajes h Revar, Ld. Sr. DR did not raise an y objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT( A) for the fresh ad judication as per the provisions of law. 6. We have car efully considered the rival sub missions. The only issue involved in this case is deduction of Rs.75,80,923/- clai med under Se c tion 54F of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act ’). The AO had disallowed the clai m for the r eason that the construction of the house was not co mpleted within the period of 3 years fro m the date of transfer of the original asset, on which the capital gain was derived b y the assessee. In this case , the assessee had declared LTC G of Rs.1 2,88,49,830/-, against which, deduction of Rs.75,80,923/- was clai med under Section 54F of the Act in respect of investment in residential house. In the state ment of facts filed before the Ld. CI T(A), the a ssessee had explained that a su m of Rs.35 Lacs was deposited on 22.07.2016 in UBI Capital Gain Account. F urther, a plot of land was purchased on 17.02.2016 for a total consideration of Rs.42,51,220/- for construction of residential house. The assessee had started the construction on the said plot and expenditure of Rs.36,63,350/- was alread y incurre d by the assessee towards this construction till 05.11.2018. The refore, the assessee had rightly clai med de duction of Rs.79,63,061/- (Rs.42,51,220/- + Rs.37,11,841/-) i.e. within the period of 3 years ITA No. 655/Ahd/2024 [Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 4 – fro m the sale of land. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not considered the sub missions of the assessee in the state ment of facts and had mer el y dis missed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance. The provision of Section 250(6) of the Act requires the Ld. C IT( A) to dispose the matter in writing and with reasons on the point of dispute raised b y the assessee. Since, the Ld. CI T( A) has not exa mined the ma tter on merits, we dee m it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits b y giving another opportunity to the assessee. Needle ss to mention, the assessee shall cooperate during the appellate proceedings and shall not seek an y ad journ ment without just cause. 7. In the result, appeal preferred b y the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced on 26/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/07/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतआदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप उपउप उप/सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकारसहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad