SH. BHUPINDER SINGH,YAMUNA NAGAR V. ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

ITA 246/CHANDI/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Bhupinder Singh, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, which confirmed the quantum addition of Rs. 12,89,513 and the taxes imposed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The primary contention was regarding the share of the Assessee in a property sold, which the Assessing Officer calculated as 1/5th, whereas the Assessee claimed it was 2/15th. The CIT(A) recalculated the capital gains based on the 2/15th share but denied the claim for deductions under sections 54F and 54B as they were not claimed in the original return. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in 'NTPC vs. CIT', directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Assessee's claims for deductions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472691 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2021
• Other Referred Cases: NTPC vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 54B; 54F

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ\u000bधकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ,च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 246/CHD/2021 \u000bनधा\u000fरणवष\u000f / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Bhupinder Singh, VillHundewala, TehsilJagadhri, Distt. Yamunanagar बनाम The ITO, Ward 3, Yamunanagar \u0015थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: DALPS2562D अपीलाथ\u0019/Appellant \u001a\u001bयथ\u0019/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) \u000bनधा\u000f\u001dरतीक\u001fओरसे/Assessee by : None राज\u0015वक\u001fओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001fतार$ख/Date of Hearing : 29.10.2024 उदघोषणाक\u001fतार$ख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश/Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.06.2019passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, (Camp office at Panchkula), Ludhiana for the Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.246-Chd-2021 Bhupinder Singh, Yamunanagar 2 2. The Assessee in this appeal has taken following effective grounds of appeal: 1. That the orders of ld. CIT(A) are illegal, erroneous and perverse and thus needs to be quashed. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in concurring with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, while confirming the quantum addition to the extent of Rs. 12,89,513/- and taxes imposed by Assessing Officer without considering the facts and circumstances and the contentions of the appellant and also without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the Assessee despite notice. However, a perusal of the case file and record reveals that the small issue is involved in this appeal which can be effectively decided after hearing the ld. DR. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal of the Assessee on merit. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a co-sharer in a plot which was sold during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) calculated the share of the Assessee as 1/5th share in the said plot and charged the sale consideration to capital gains tax. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal ITA No.246-Chd-2021 Bhupinder Singh, Yamunanagar 3 before the ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that the share of the Assessee was 2/15thin the sold property and not 1/5th as determined by the A.O. The Assessee has further taken the plea that the Assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 5. So far as the plea with regard to the share of the Assessee in the said property was concerned, the ld. CIT(A) directed to rework the Long Term Capital Gain by taking the sale consideration at Rs. 12,89,513/- being 2/15th share in the total sale consideration and according allowed the said ground of appeal. However, so far as the claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s 54F / 54B is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that the Assessee had not claimed the same in the return of income. 6. It has been held time and again that the income Tax authorities should charge legitimate tax from the tax payers. It has also been held time and again that if the Assessee has failed to make a claim in the return of income, to which he is otherwise entitled to, the A.O. should assist such an Assessee to make proper claim. The Income Tax Authorities should not penalize the taxpayers for their bona fide mistakes. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ITA No.246-Chd-2021 Bhupinder Singh, Yamunanagar 4 of ‘NTPC vs. CIT’ 229 ITR 383, has held that a bonafide /legal claim which could not be made before the lower authorizes, can be made before the appellate authority. In view of this, we direct he A.O. to examine the claim of the Assessee regarding deduction u/s 54F /54B, as the case may be, and if the Assessee is found entitled to the same, the same may be granted to the Assessee, irrespective of the fact that the same was not claimed in the return of income. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12.11.2024. Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) Judicial Member Dated : 12.11.2024 “आर.क े.” आदेशक\u001f\u001a\u000bत+ल,पअ-े,षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0019/ The Appellant 2. \u001a\u001bयथ\u0019/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु.त/ CIT 4. ,वभागीय\u001a\u000bत\u000bन1ध, आयकरअपील$यआ1धकरण, च3डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड\u000fफाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "