9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 452 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - long delay of 2080 days - HELD THAT - Before us, no explanation has been given by way of affidavit explaining the reasons of filing the appeal after such a long period. In view of the above when no explanation has been given by the assessee, the appeal is highly time barred and therefore, is required to be dismissed on this ground allowed. Deduction u/s 54F - assessee is having more than two houses - HELD THAT - The perusal of the order clearly shows that the assessee had sold and purchased the plots only and has not acquired any residential house within the meaning of law. Further, as mentioned by the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is having more than two houses, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any claim u/s. 54F of the I.T.Act. In the light of the above, the assessee has no case of merit, which is duly mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) in the order passed by him. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of sale consideration and capital gains. 3. Eligibility for deduction under section 54. 4. Eligibility for deduction under section 54F. 5. Time-barred appeal and dismissal grounds. Issue 1: Disallowance of Deduction under Sections 54 and 54F: The appeal concerned the disallowance of deduction under sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54 for the sale of properties, arguing that they were residential houses. However, it was found that the properties sold were vacant plots with a small open structure, not qualifying as residential houses. The assessee's claim for deduction under section 54 was dismissed as the open structure did not meet the conditions for exemption. Additionally, the alternate claim for deduction under section 54F was also rejected as the assessee owned more than one residential house at the time of the original asset's transfer. Issue 2: Determination of Sale Consideration and Capital Gains: The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated long-term capital gains by disallowing the claim of the assessee under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The AO valued the sale consideration based on the Stamp Valuation Authority's guidelines, as per section 50C. The AO rejected the assessee's argument regarding property disputes affecting valuation, stating that the dispute was about ownership, not property value. The AO's decision to adopt the guideline value for computing capital gains was upheld, dismissing the grounds challenging the valuation. Issue 3: Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54: The assessee's claim for deduction under section 54 was further analyzed concerning the conditions for exemption. It was established that the properties sold were vacant plots with an open structure, not meeting the criteria for a residential house. The assessee's attempts to claim exemption under section 54 were deemed as an afterthought to evade capital gains tax. The absence of necessary approvals and the nature of the structure led to the dismissal of the claim for deduction under section 54. Issue 4: Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54F: The assessee's alternative claim for deduction under section 54F was also assessed. It was noted that the assessee owned more than one residential house at the time of the original asset's transfer, rendering them ineligible for deduction under section 54F. The properties owned by the assessee were confirmed to be residential houses, disqualifying them from claiming the deduction under section 54F. Issue 5: Time-Barred Appeal and Dismissal Grounds: The appeal was found to be time-barred, filed after a significant delay of 2080 days without a valid explanation. The lack of justification for the delayed appeal led to its dismissal on procedural grounds. Despite the time-barred nature of the appeal, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was upheld on merit, as the assessee failed to meet the eligibility criteria for deductions under sections 54 and 54F. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed due to being time-barred and lacking merit based on the ineligibility of the assessee for deductions under sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act.
|
