VALAPPIL KANDY LAKSHMI,THALASSERY V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -2, KANNUR

ITA 773/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Valappile Kandy Lakshmi, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was the denial of a deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act on the sale of agricultural lands, which the Assessing Officer (AO) classified as a capital asset liable for long-term capital gains tax based on a report from the Village Administrative Officer. The assessee, an 80-year-old woman, claimed she was not conversant with computers and had not received proper notice of the hearing, leading to her absence during the initial appeals. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity to present her case at the CIT(A) level and thus remitted the case back for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396838 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OMANAKUTTAN; SNR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 773/Coch/2023 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Valappile Kandy Lakshmi, Mukunda Sadan, P.O. Pachapoika, Thalassery, Kannur – 670 643. PAN: AHHPL3293N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Kannur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Suresh Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 20-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 21/08/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the sale of agricultural lands. The AO not accepted the case of the assessee on the ground that the Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 773/Coch/2023 Village Administrative Officer had furnished a report to the effect that the property is situated within the limits of Mattannur Municipality and therefore the same is a capital asset liable to be taxed under the long term capital gains. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal in the absence of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is aged about 80 years and therefore she is not conversant with the computer and therefore she has no knowledge about the hearing notices sent through the email and prayed for an opportunity to represent the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). Further the Ld AR submitted that the lands sold are agricultural lands and therefore no LTCG would arise. 4. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. We have perused the assessment order which was made based on the report furnished by the Village Administrative Officer. It seems that the said report was not communicated to the assessee before passing the assessment order. The assessee also not having enough opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A).Even though the Ld.CIT(A) had discussed the grounds and passed the orders, the same is without the submissions made by the assessee and therefore, the ld CIT could not have decided the appeal on merits. In such circumstances and also in order to decide the issue on merits, we are setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the assessee. Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 773/Coch/2023 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated, the 27th May, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cochin "