RANI SHUKLA, Moradabad V. ITO WARD 2(2), Moradabad

ITA 7082/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5045 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7082/Del./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) Smt. Rani Sikka, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (2), H – 56, Khushal Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad. Moradabad – 244 001 (Uttar Pradesh) (PAN : AUPPS0753H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Mayank Patawari, CA REVENUE BY : Smt. Radha K. Narang, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022 Date of Order : 07.04.2022 O R D E R The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals), Moradabad for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts on both while confirming the action of the Ld. AO for making addition of Rs.4,72,992/- . 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts on both for confirming the disallowance of Rs.4,72,992/- of claim of the assessee u/s 54F by alleging that the assessee has not furnished any evidence regarding investment in house property at any stage, while the 2 ITA No.7082/Del./2019 assessee has filed the relevant documentary evidences during the appellant proceedings.” 3. Brief facts qua the aforesaid issue are that, the assessee had shown long term capital gain of Rs.4,72,992/- on sale of jewellery and has claimed deduction u/s 54F on this amount for making investment in house property. AO held that no documentary evidences have been filed regarding investment in plot/house property and accordingly, he rejected the claim u/s 54F on account of long term capital gain of Rs.4,72,992/- Even the ld. CIT (A) held that no documentary evidences have been filed at the appellate stage and accordingly, the addition was sustained. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of other co-owner, Smt. Yoga Sikka, this Tribunal on exactly same facts, vide order dated 21.05.2019 in ITA No.938/Del/2018 for AY 2014-15 has set aside the matter after observing as under :- “8. I have given a careful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee has invested the full sale consideration received on the sale of jewellery in the purchase of the plot of land. It is also not in dispute that before the lower authorities the assessee could not adduce any evidence. The certificate from municipal corporation, Moradabad has been furnished for the first time. In the interest of justice I restore this issue to the files of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the certificate of construction issued by Municipal Corporation, Moradabad and decide the issue afresh as per provisions of law, keeping in mind that the cost of investment in land is also part of cost of construction of the residential house to avail the exemption u/s. 54F Act. Needless to mention the Assessing Officer shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3 ITA No.7082/Del./2019 5. He further submitted that post aforesaid direction, the AO has, after verifying the evidences filed, has accepted the claim. Therefore, this issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee in the case of co-owner for the same reasoning. In the paper book, he has also filed completion certificate for house property issued by the Government Approved Valuer and also by the Municipal Corporation, Moradabad. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the matter be restored back to the file of AO. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, I find that the Tribunal in the case of co-owner (supra) wherein addition was made on account of long term capital gain on sale of jewellery of Rs.4,88,902/- which was claimed to have been invested in the house property and exemption u/s 54F was claimed, has set aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the evidences viz. certificate of construction issued by Municipal Corporation, Moradabad as well as certificate issued by the Government approved valuer. Exactly same evidences have been filed before me also. Now that ld. AO in his order dated 02.01.2020 passed u/s 254/143(3) giving effect to the said ITAT order in the case of Smt. Yoga Sikka has accepted the claim. Therefore, once these evidences have been accepted by the AO, instead of remanding back the matter to the AO, I hold that the claim of deduction u/s 54F of Rs.4,72,992/- is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced on 7 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.04.2022 TS 4 ITA No.7082/Del./2019 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), Moradabad 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.