The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on finding out that the assesee was misguided by the professional in appellate proceedings, remanded a farmer’s exemption claim under section 54F.
The aforesaid observation was made by the Delhi ITAT, when an appeal was filed before it by the Assessee, as against the order of the CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 18.12.2018, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The grounds of the asseessee’s being that the order of dismissing appeal by the CIT(A) is bad in law, wrong on facts and against the principle of natural justice as she is not correct in rejecting the grounds of the appellant that the AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147, without any legal and valid mandatory service of notice us 148 of the Income Tx Act, the assessee added that she has passed ex-parte order us 144 of the, as against the principles of natural justice
With the assessee further adding to the grounds of his appeal that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the findings of the AO, assessing the whole sales consideration (his share), as short-term capital gain at Rs.78,10,000/, without appreciating the fact that the consideration received on sale of agricultural land situated at vill. Noorpur, Ghazibad, is invested in purchase and construction of house property, and hence that the same is entitled exemption us 54F of the Income Tax Act, the brief facts of the case were that in this case, the Assessing Officer had passed an order u/s 144 of the Income TAX Act and made an addition of Rs.78,10,000/, being the share of assessee in the sale of property.
Upon assessee’s appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. Further, the ssessee’s claims for 54F exemption was also denied by him, by referring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs CIT. And, it is against this order, that the assessee is presently in appeal before Delhi ITAT.
Hearing the contentions of the Revenue, as submitted by Sh. Kanv Bali, the Sr. DR, while no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, the ITAT after perusing the materials available on record, observed:
“Upon careful consideration, 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 have also been denied by referring the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. 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.”
“Furthermore, as regards, the assessee claims for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, we note that Hon’ble Apex Court 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. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of being heard”, the coram of Astha Chandra, the Judicial Member, along with Shamim Yahya, the Accountant Member, added.
Thus, the ITAT finally held:
“In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
