9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 631 - AT - Income TaxClaim for exemption u/s 54 - rejected the assessee s claim for exemption u/s 54 instead of sec. 54F of the Act on the ground that it was the assessee himself who claimed exemption u/s 54F - Whether the AO while passing rectification u/s 154 should have to give benefits to assessee available u/s 54, even though there is no claim made by the assessee to that effect? - Held that - A perusal of the order of assessment dated 27/3/2014 for asst. year 1996-97, as extracted above, clearly establishes the assessee s averment that the AO has passed this order brazenly, ignoring the binding decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in assessee s own case 2012 (8) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT for fresh consideration of the assessee s claim for exemption u/s 54 instead of u/s 54F of the Act as originally claimed. We find that there is not even a whisper in the order of assessment to show that the AO complied with the binding decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in considering the assessee s claim u/s 54 of the Act and adjudicating thereon in the light of the Hon ble Courts observations/directions in this regard. The ld CIT(A) s finding in the impugned order to the contrary; that the AO has complied with the directions of the Hon ble High Court (Supra) in considering the assessee s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act; is, in our view, not borne out from a plain reading of the order of assessment dated 27/3/2014 for asst. year 1996-97 (extracted Supra) and appears to be more a figment of his imagination based on nonexistent assumptions. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order of assessment for asst. year 2006- 07 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 260A of the Act dated 27/3/2014 is to be set aside, as evidently the AO has not followed the Hon ble High Courts directions for consideration of the assessee s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act in accordance with law and the Hon ble courts observations in this regard. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the authorities below i.e of the AO/CIT(A), and remand the issue of consideration of the assessee s claim for exemption us/ 54 of the Act to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and to pass a reasoned, speaking order thereon
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Assessment of exemption under Section 54 vs. Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 3. Compliance with the Karnataka High Court's directions. 4. Merits of the exemption claim under Section 54. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee filed a petition for condonation of a 57-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as awaiting rectification from the First Appellate Authority and subsequent procedural delays. The Tribunal, considering the reasons and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MST Katiji & Others (167 ITR 467) (SC), found the reasons satisfactory and condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication. 2. Assessment of Exemption under Section 54 vs. Section 54F: The assessee sold a property and initially claimed an exemption under Section 54F. However, the exemption for an advance of ?20 lakhs was later withdrawn by the AO as the agreement was rescinded. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, provided partial relief but did not entertain the claim under Section 54 as it was not initially claimed by the assessee. The Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the AO to consider the exemption under Section 54, directing a fresh assessment. 3. Compliance with the Karnataka High Court's Directions: The Tribunal noted that the AO, in the reassessment order dated 27/3/2014, failed to comply with the High Court's directions to consider the exemption under Section 54. The AO's order did not reflect any consideration of the High Court's directives, and the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO complied with the High Court's directions was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the AO's assessment order for non-compliance with the High Court's binding decision and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, ensuring adherence to the High Court's observations. 4. Merits of the Exemption Claim under Section 54: Given the remand for fresh consideration, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the exemption claim under Section 54, as these would be examined anew by the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass a reasoned, speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to present details and submissions. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the impugned orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanding the issue of the exemption claim under Section 54 back to the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with the Karnataka High Court's directions. The AO is to ensure compliance with the High Court's observations and provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard.
|
