2021 (9) TMI 189 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 54F - assessee had filed additional evidence u/r 29A of the ITAT Rules, 1963 - HELD THAT - As during the appellate proceedings before us assessee had produced additional evidences u/r 29 of the ITAT Rules in support of the claim that he had not acquired the flat in question as such there is no violation of condition prescribed U/s 54F of the Act. According to the assessee, it was truly agreed that in view of the fact that additional evidences were filed by the assessee, therefore, the matter was to be restored to the A.O. on this particular issue but inadvertently, the Bench had restored the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding all the issues afresh. We modify the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench and direct for restoration of the matter to the record of the A.O. to consider the additional evidences filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh only on the issue regarding the flat at Ahmedabad while deciding the deduction U/s 54F of the Act needless to say the assessee shall be granted opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against order passed by Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jaipur.
2. Disallowance of claim under section 54F.
3. Consideration of additional evidence.
4. Rectification of mistakes in the ITAT order.

Analysis:

1. Appeal against order passed by Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jaipur:
The Misc. Application was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur, which set aside the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for giving findings on all issues and grounds and considering additional evidences filed. The hearing was conducted through video conference due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

2. Disallowance of claim under section 54F:
The appeal pertained to the disallowance of a claim under section 54F. The ld. AO disallowed the claim on four grounds, with the ld. CIT(A) accepting the contentions on three grounds but denying the claim on one ground. Additional evidences were filed by the assessee to support the claim, which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A) or the AO. The ITAT set aside the matter for the ld. CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and give a finding on all issues raised by the AO regarding the deduction under section 54F.

3. Consideration of additional evidence:
The assessee submitted additional evidence during the appellate proceedings before the ITAT to support the claim that the flat in question was not acquired, thereby not violating the conditions of section 54F. The ITAT, after reviewing the record, contents of the Misc. Application, and submissions of the assessee, found that the matter should have been restored to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for consideration of the additional evidence. The ITAT modified its earlier order and directed the matter to be restored to the A.O. for a fresh decision on the issue related to the flat at Ahmedabad concerning the deduction under section 54F.

4. Rectification of mistakes in the ITAT order:
The assessee requested the ITAT to rectify the mistakes in the order, highlighting that the grounds of issue not raised before the ITAT were considered and set aside erroneously. The ITAT acknowledged the error and modified its order to direct the matter back to the A.O. for a fresh decision based on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the ITAT's decision to address the appeal and related matters effectively.