9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 243 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order u/s 144 - addition being share of assessee in sale of property - assessee claims for 54F exemption denied - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee is an illiterate farmer and claims that he was not properly presented in the assessment and appellate proceedings. Moreover, the assessee claims that he was misguided by the consultant. We further note that the assessee claims for u/s 54F exemption has also been denied by referring the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT We find in the interest of justice will be well served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. As regards, the assessee claims for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, we note that in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court has expounded that the said decision would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT in dealing with the claim otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly, we direct that the above ground be admitted and decided as per law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 147, computation of short term capital gain, denial of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, and the proper presentation of the case by the illiterate farmer-assessee. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer under Section 147: The appeal challenged the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) dismissing the appeal by the assessee, contending that the Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 without proper service of notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant argued that the ex-parte order under section 144 of the Act was against the principles of natural justice. The ITAT noted the appellant's claim that he was not properly presented in the assessment and appellate proceedings due to being an illiterate farmer and being misguided by a professional. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's plea and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for the appellant to be given an opportunity to be heard. Computation of Short Term Capital Gain: The Assessing Officer had passed an order under section 144 of the Act, adding Rs.78,10,000/- as the share of the assessee in the sale of property. Both the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the provisions of sections 48 and 49 of the Income Tax Act regarding the computation of short term capital gain. The ex-parte assessment under section 144 of the Act was deemed to be without the application of mind. The ITAT directed that the above ground be admitted and decided as per law, granting the assessee an opportunity to present his case properly. Denial of Exemption under Section 54F: The appellant's claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act was denied by both the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs CIT. The ITAT acknowledged the denial but emphasized that the said decision would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT in dealing with the claim. The ITAT directed that the issue of exemption under section 54F be considered afresh by the Assessing Officer, ensuring that the appellant is given an opportunity to be heard. Proper Presentation of Case by Illiterate Farmer-Assessee: The appellant, an illiterate farmer, claimed that he was not properly presented in the assessment and appellate proceedings, being misguided by a professional. The ITAT recognized the appellant's circumstances and the need for a fair opportunity to present his case. The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the appellant's right to be heard and considered in the proceedings.
|
