9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, AM For the Assessee : Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.) For the Revenue : Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, A.M. These two appeals are filed by the assessee and are arising out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur both dated 29.11.2023 [ Here in after referred as Ld. CIT(A) ] for the assessment years 2011-12 2012-13 respectively, which in turn arise from the orders dated 24.12.2018 26.12.2018 passed under section147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (Here in after referred as Act ) by the ITO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mend, alter or delete any or all of the ground of appeal at any time before decision of appeal. ITA no. 515/JP/2024 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 79 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. The prayer of the assessee reads as under : In this case the due date to file the appeal was 28.01.2024 but filed on dated 18.04.2024. Your honour s the delay was because of long illness of Shri Suchet Singh, Karta of HUF. He was suffering from back pain and was advised complete bed rest from 04-january-2024 to 08-April-2024, copy of medical certificate affidavit are attached herewith for kind perusal and verification. It is therefore most respectfully prays that the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the appeal may kindly be admitted. 3.1 In support of the contentions so raised the Authorized person has filed an affidavit to support the contentions raised in the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 3.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that the assessee is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to his hands but is to be taxed in the case of the HUF. As direction notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the HUF assessee on 28.03.2018 and in response the assessee has filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 1,56,630/-. During the proceeding the assessee did not produced supporting evidence regarding indexed cost of sale of land and deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. Therefore, ld. AO based on the direction of the ld. CIT(A) taxed the long term capital gain based on the information available at Rs. 60,33,400/- in the return of income and accordingly assessed the income at Rs. 61,90,030/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the order for the year under consideration. The contention/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- 6.3 The appellant has made contention that Ld A.O. also erred in taking cost of acquisition @ R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which were received by the HUP from selling of the property have been used by the individual in purchase and construction of the property. The appellant has not shown that there was a partition in the HUF that the assets of the HUF were distributed amongst its coparceners as otherwise the individual assessee could not have received the funds and could not have invested the same in the residential house which is in his individual name and not in the time of the HUF. 8.5. On perusal of valuation report submitted in appeal, it is seen that it is not mentioned on what basis the valuer decided the construction expenditure made during the period of Dec 2010 to Dec 2011. The details of bills voucher regarding expenses of labour, material purchase, contractor etc. are not mentioned in the valuation report. It appears the valuation report is prepared only for convenience of appellant. Since the construction was done when the deduction under section 54F was claimed the appellant was required to show the investment with the support of bills and vouchers and payment evidences and not with the support of valuation report as the document like valuation report are used in the scenarios like whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the matter stating that ; 8.3 The appellant has made contention that ld. AO also erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 54F as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Hon ble CIT(A) Hon ble ITAT have also given instruction for the same in their respective orders. It is important in this case to note that initially the assessment was done in the hands of the individual assessee and it was the argument and claim of the appellant that the assessment needs to be done in the hands of the HUF however now in the assessment in the case of the HUF the appellant has claimed the deduction of the section 54F of the Act whereas the claimed investment has been done by the individual assessee. When the land sold by the HUF could not be assessed in the hands of the individual then how the investment done by the individual makes the HUF entitled for deduction under section 54F. Further, why the construction and the ownership is not in the name of HUF also has not been clarified by the appellant. Judicial exception from law cannot be claimed us a matter of right and acceptance of deviation depends upon cogent reasoning and justification made along with supporting evidences behind such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
