2014 (7) TMI 292 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence - Claim of deduction u/s 54F - Transfer of tenancy rights Income from other sources or capital gain Held that - The language of rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, prohibits the parties to produce additional evidence - It is only when the Tribunal requires such additional evidence in the form of any document or affidavit or examination of a witness or through a witness that it can call for the same or direct any affidavit to be filed - once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause from leading such an evidence and that this evidence would have a material bearing on the issue which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and the ends of justice demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order to that effect - necessary details came in to his possession after the assessment order and the order of the FAA were passed - the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not adducing the evidences before the departmental authorities by a reasonable cause thus, additional evidences produced by the assessee are admitted - the evidences will have direct bearing on the issue to be decided thus, the matter is liable to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of sum received on transfer of tenancy right
2. Rejection of deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act

Issue 1: Taxability of sum received on transfer of tenancy right
The appellant challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upholding the Assessing Officer's decision that the sum of Rs. 40,00,000 received on the transfer of tenancy right in a residential flat should be taxed under "Income from Other Sources." The appellant argued that the sum was on account of the sale of tenancy rights and should be considered as Capital Gain. The appellant provided evidence such as ration card, phone bills, and electricity bills to establish the tenancy right. However, the authorities found the evidence insufficient and denied the claim. The First Appellate Authority also upheld the decision. The appellant later submitted additional evidence before the Tribunal, including rent receipts, a certificate from the landlord, and utility bills. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, considering the circumstances that prevented the appellant from producing the evidence earlier. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing a reevaluation based on the additional evidence provided.

Issue 2: Rejection of deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act
The appellant also contested the denial of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act by the Revenue Authorities. The denial was based on the ownership of more than one house property at the time of the transfer of the original asset. The appellant argued that the property in question was under construction and not completed, thus not qualifying as a residential house under the Act. The Tribunal found that the resolution of the first issue regarding the tenancy right would impact the decision on the deduction under section 54F. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after resolving the tenancy issue. The second effective ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remitting both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The decision was made in the interest of justice, considering the additional evidence submitted by the appellant and the interrelation between the two issues.