2021 (4) TMI 1079 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of exemption u/s 54 denied - investment of the sale consideration in the new residential house was made in the name of the mother of the assessee - HELD THAT - On perusal of the appellate order we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the eligibility of exemption under section 54 of the Act but to allow the benefit to the assessee the assessee was required to furnish the proof that the capital asset acquired was assessed in the hands of the assessee as per the decision relied on by the assessee. As prayed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee we direct the ld. CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the proof that the capital asset acquired was assessed in the hands of the assessee and in case the assessee fails to furnish the evidence the appellate order already passed by the ld. CIT(A) stands sustained. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to addition of long term capital gains and challenge to ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of long term capital gains
The appellant challenged the addition of long term capital gains in the appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant sold a residential flat and claimed deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act for investment in a new property. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction as the new property was purchased in the name of the appellant's mother. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of long term capital gain, stating that the appellant failed to provide evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not dispute the eligibility of exemption under section 54 but required proof that the capital asset acquired was assessed in the appellant's hands. Citing a relevant case law, the Tribunal directed the ld. CIT(A) to provide the appellant with another opportunity to furnish the necessary proof. If the appellant fails to do so, the appellate order will stand.

Issue 2: Ex parte order by ld. CIT(A)
Apart from challenging the addition of long term capital gains, the appellant contested the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The appellant argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present evidence, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the appellant requested another chance to present the required evidence. The ld. DR supported the ld. CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, directed the ld. CIT(A) to grant the appellant one more opportunity to present the necessary evidence, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 9th April, 2021 in Chennai.