9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1118 - AT - Income TaxBenefit of deduction u/s. 54F - allowing cost of acquisition - land sold belongs to the HUF of the appellant - second round of litigation - HELD THAT - As regards the issue of allowing cost of acquisition and deduction u/s. 54F of the Act the ld. AO did not consider due to non-submission of the details by the assessee. CIT(A) has given the different finding without commenting upon the records of the assessee. Thus, the bench feels that the issue of allowability of the cost of acquisition and deduction u/s. 54F needs to be examined based on the merits of the case. Even the assessee when objected by the DR about the allowability of the claim of cost of acquisition stated that the assessee has filed the valuation report and regards the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act the investment made by the assessee the matter is required to be examined based on the provision of section 54F and therefore, we considered it deem fit that the assessee be given a fair chance to represent the merits of the case and therefore, we considered it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the issue of allowability of cost of acquisition and allowability of deduction u/s. 54F of the in accordance with the law and at the same time considering the non-submission of the details by the assessee we considered it fit to levy the cost to the assessee for each of the year for an amount of Rs. 1000/- each to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief fund and necessary receipt be provided to the ld. AO when the ld. AO start the set aside proceedings.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Determination of the cost of acquisition. 3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal The assessee filed an application for condonation of a 79-day delay in filing the appeal, citing long illness of the Karta of the HUF, supported by a medical certificate and affidavit. The assessee's representative argued that the delay was due to medical exigencies beyond control. The Revenue objected to the condonation but did not dispute the facts presented by the assessee. Judgment: The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons sufficient and supported by evidence. The decision was backed by the precedent set in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471(SC), which advocates a liberal approach in condoning delays. 2. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition The Assessing Officer (AO) took the cost of acquisition at Rs. 91,200/- based on a sale deed obtained from DIG Stamps, while the assessee claimed it to be Rs. 100/- per square yard. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's determination, noting the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence to support their claimed cost. Judgment: The Tribunal noted the conflicting views between the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to re-examine the cost of acquisition based on the merits of the case, allowing the assessee to submit relevant documents and evidence. 3. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54F The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for investments made in a residential house from HUF funds. The AO denied the deduction due to lack of evidence supporting the investment and the timing of the construction. The CIT(A) also denied the deduction, arguing that the investment was made by the individual, not the HUF, and the property was not in the name of the HUF. Judgment: The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s and AO's findings contradictory and noted the lack of detailed examination of the evidence. The matter was remanded back to the AO to re-assess the eligibility for deduction under Section 54F, considering the provisions of the Act and allowing the assessee to present supporting documents. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- per year on the assessee for non-submission of details, to be deposited in the "Prime Minister Relief Fund." Conclusion: Both appeals (ITA No. 515/JPR/2024 and ITA No. 528/JPR/2024) were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the AO to re-examine the issues of cost of acquisition and eligibility for deduction under Section 54F, based on the merits and additional evidence provided by the assessee.
|
