9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R ARUN KHODPIA, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, (in short CIT(A) ), vide order dated 07.12.2023 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short 'The Act') for the Assessment Year 2014-15 which in turn arises from the order of Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (in short AO ), u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 30.06.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That under the facts and law, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in passing order ex-parte, without allowing opportunity to the appellant, though application for adjournment was filed on 25.10.2023 vide Acknowledgement No. 446725031261023 for adjournment upto 08.12.2023, but Order was passed on 07.12.2023. 2. That under the facts and law, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in denying exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 53,86,108/- claimed by the Appellant in respect of Investment made in House Property. Prayed that the Capital gain exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 53,86,108/- be allowed. 3. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had filed his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 68,58,900/- because no documentary proof regarding such investment could be produced by the assessee, and in absence of any corroborative evidence establishing the investment of Rs. 68,58,900/- in the new house property by the assessee, an addition of Rs. 54,13,892/- was made under the head capital gain on sale of land by rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act, considering that the assessee is not entitled to such claim. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid of order Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however assessee remain non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A), even after sufficient opportunities were afforded to him. While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned about the noncompliance by the assessee / appellant and, therefore, on the basis of material available on record, after deliberations on merits of the case, the decision was granted with the following observations: 4. Non-compliance by the appellant:- During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided more than enough opportunities, however, neither the appellant nor his AR filed any written submission on the pre-fixed hearing dates. The det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence regarding investment were filed either before the AO or before this office. Apart from the above, the appellant failed to furnish any other vital evidences, i.e. copy of Bank statements reflecting the transactions made, copy of purchase deed, copy of Architect Certificate, Site Plan/Construction Plan and municipal/panchayat payment receipts and evidences relating to cost incurred on construction of residential house, viz. bills of expenses on material, labour, wood, electric fitting, proof of land cost, demolition cost, etc., as supporting evidences to justify the claim of deduction of Rs. 53,86,107.65. Since the appellant failed to furnish any such vital details/evidences either before' the AO during the course of assessment proceedings or before this office during the appellate proceedings, therefore, the appellant failed to satisfactorily prove that he was eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, addition of Rs. 53,86,107.65 made for disallowance of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is hereby confirmed. In view of the above, on merits also appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that the additional evidence submitted are of material importance and deciding the issue, however, since the same were not readily available during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the assessee was unable to submit the same before the Ld. AO. Ld. AR further argued that under such facts and circumstances, it is the prayer that deduction u/s 54F so claimed, by the assessee shall be allowed and the addition made by the Ld. AO on this count, which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC by passing an order without affording adequate opportunity to the appellant. 9. Alternatively, referring to the ground no. 1 it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was passed in haste, even after the adjournment request of the assessee to adjourn the case upto 08.12.2023 whereas the order was passed on 07.12.2023. It is the submission that the assessee was not provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard. The assessee was deprived of placing its explanations, contentions and the evidence to support the claim under the provisions of Section 54F of the Act. Backed by such arguments it was the prayer of the Ld. AR that order of Ld. CIT(A) passed without appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a deduction u/s 54F against the said long term capital gain declaring that he had invested an amount of Rs. 68,58,900/- in a property situated at Bilaspur in his wife s name. Ld. AO requested the assessee to furnish documentary proof to support his claim of deduction u/s 54F. Several opportunities were granted to the assessee by the Ld. AO, but the assessee failed to produce the evidence with regard to the investment in the house property out of the sale proceeds of the land which has caused the long-term capital gain. Again before, Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was unable to furnish any further explanation, opportunities were granted and the assessee had sought adjournments on various dates, however the order was passed considering the facts on record. While submitting additional evidence before us, Ld. AR have furnished the documents like valuation report by the approved valuer, personal capital account and statement of affair of Smt. Jyoti Agrawal as on 31.03.2018, Bhavan Anugya from Municipal Corporation. Ld. AR, to establish with the support of such document that the assessee had made the investment in the house for which valuation report is prepared by the approved valuer and perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls and vouchers were not produced. (ii) Pawan Aggarawal vs. DCIT, ITAT, Chandigarh, Bench B , reported in (2023) 154 taxmann.com 366 (Chandigarh-Trib), wherein it has been held that Where Assessing Officer disallowed cost of construction while computing LTCG on sale of property for reason that assessee failed to produce bills / voucher of construction activities, since admittedly there were withdrawals from assessee s account for construction of property and assessee had also submitted valuation report in support of his claim of cost of construction which would be germane and relevant to determine appropriate cost of construction, however, same was not considered Matter was to be reminded to examine such valuation report and decide matter afresh. 15. In view of aforesaid observations by the coordinate benches of the tribunal, respectfully drawing the corollary adopted therein, that though the assessee fails to produce bills / vouchers of construction activity, the claim of deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied without considering the relevant documents which are furnish before us as additional evidence u/r 29 of the ITAT Rules. Since, such additional evidence is not before the Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
