Pratibhaben Anandbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 809/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8625 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORTHEASSESSEETOFILETHERETURNOFINCOME.THUS; THEAOINTHE; SHRIB.PMAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.NDIVATIA

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFOREMsSUCHITRAKAMBLE,JUDICIALMEMBER And SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.809/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2013-2014 PratibhabenAnandbhaiPandya, 71,SerendeepMansions, NearHanumanjiMandir, VIPRoad, Ghuma-Shela, Ahmedabad-380058. PAN:APXPP5405Q Vs. IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriS.NDivatia,with ShriSamirVora,ARs Revenueby:ShriB.PMakwana,Sr.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:07/02/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:21/02/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Ahmedabad, arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.147r.w.s.144ofthe IncomeTaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttothe AssessmentYear2013-14. ITAno.809/AHD/2023 A.Y.2013-14 2 2.TheonlygrievanceraisedbytheassesseeisthattheLd.CIT(A)erredin confirmingthedisallowanceofexemptionclaimedbytheassesseeu/s54ECofthe ActforRs.16,30,417/-only. 3.Inthepresentcase,theassesseehasneitherfiledreturnofincomeu/s 139(1)oftheAct,norinresponsetothenoticeissuedu/s148oftheAct,whereas theasseseehassoldimmovablepropertywherehisshareisofRs.16,30,417/- only.Aspertheassessee,therewasinvestmentintheRECBondswhichareliable forexemptionu/s54ECoftheAct.Therefore,accordingtotheasseseethe incomewasnotchargeabletotaxandaccordinglyreturnwasnotfiled.However, theAOwasoftheviewthatforclaimingexemptionu/s54ECoftheAct,itwas compulsoryfortheassesseetofilethereturnofincome.Thus,theAOinthe absenceofreturnfiledbytheassesseehasdisallowedtheexemptionclaimedu/s 54ECoftheActandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 4.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealtotheLd.CIT(A),whohasalso confirmedtheorderoftheAObyobservingasunder: Sincetheclaimwasnotmadeforseekingexemptionu/s.54ECintheITR,thebenefitofexemption u/s.54ECisheldtoberightlydeniedbytheAO.Underthegivensituation.Hencetheadditionmade byAOissustained.However,theAOisdirectedtoconsiderreasonablecostofacquisitionwith indexationbasedondetailsobtainedfromsub-registraroffice/appellant,inviewofnaturaljustice,as perlaw.Thus,GroundofappealsNos.1and2arepartlyallowedforstatisticalpurposes. 5.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 6.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to57and contendedthatitisnotmandatorytofilethereturnofincomeu/s139(1)ofthe Act,forclaimingexemptionu/s54ECoftheAct.ItwasalsopointedoutbytheLd. ARforcalculatingthecapitalgain,theinvestmentmadeincertainbondsand propertieshavebeensavedforcalculatingtheincomechargeabletotaxunderthe headcapitalgain.Accordingly,theLd.ARsubmittedthattheassesseeshouldbe allowedthebenefitofexemptionu/s54ECoftheAct. ITAno.809/AHD/2023 A.Y.2013-14 3 7.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 8.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Thefactsinpresentcasearenotindisputewhich havebeenelaboratedintheprecedingparagraphandthereforeforthesakeof convenienceandbrevity,wearenotinclinedtorepeatthesame. 8.1Theissuebeforeusislimitedtotheextentwhethertheassesseeiseligible forexemptionu/s54ECoftheActwithoutfilingthereturnofincome.Inthis regard,wehaveperusedtheprovisionsofsection54ECoftheActr.w.s.139(1)of theActandnotethatithasnowherebeenprovidedthatforclaimingexemption u/s54ECoftheAct,theassesseehastofilethereturnofincome.Evenatthe timeofhearingtheLd.DRhasnotbroughtourattentiontosuchprovisionofthe Act,suggestingthatitismandatory,forclaimingexemptionu/s54ECoftheAct, tofilethereturnofincome.Accordingly,wearenotconvincedwiththefindingsof theLd.CIT(A).Thus,wedirecttheAOtoallowtheexemptiontotheassesseeon accountofinvestmentmadeinRECLtd.aspertheprovisionoflawevenifthe asseseedoesnotfilethereturnofincome.Hence,thegroundofappealofthe assesseeisallowed. 9.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton21/02/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SUCHITRAKAMBLE)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated21/02/2024 Manish