The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench has recently held that It needs to be kept in mind that the Tax Authorities are acting as servants of the Government of India. Hence, are expected to be live and alert to the citizens for whom and on whose behalf, the functionaries of the State act.
In hearing the appeal of Shri Surinder Kumar Malhotra, a senior citizen filed in question of the the correctness of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), the Bench comprising Judicial Member Diva Singh proceeded with the adjudication in spite of the absence of representation on behalf of the assessee. The material on record was looked into and the revenue representative was heard.
The delay of four days was condoned on the ground that no advantage has been derived by the assessee in filing the appeal late nor any disadvantage can be said to be visited upon the Revenue if the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits.
The relevant facts of the case are that qua the Long Term Capital Gain available to the assessee in the year under consideration deduction u/s 54 of the Act was claimed. The said claim was disallowed holding that the proceeds have been applied to acquiring two separate properties. The assessee has pleaded that these were adjoining properties and may be treated as a single unit in terms of various decisions available. However, the said request was not accepted. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the legal issue and has held in para 6 that the assessee has not argued anything further.
On perusal of the records, it was found by the second appellate authority that the impugned order could not be upheld on the grounds that it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has completely ignored the facts pleaded on record and an observation was made as “It is seen that the legal position on two adjoining flats, if constituting a single residential unit is well settled.”
On the basis of the observation as has been made, the appeal of the assessee, a senior citizen was allowed, emphasising that “The obdurate attitude of ignoring the written pleadings on record are most unfortunate.” and the ITAT quashed the order of the CIT(A).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
