2020 (8) TMI 67 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Condones Delay, Allows New Evidence for Tax Deduction Claim, and Ensures Fair Process in Reassessment Case.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, condoning a 2-day delay due to reasonable cause. It remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh ... Benefit of deduction u/s. 54F denied - Admission of additional evidence - addition under the head LTCG with respect to the sale of her commercial property - AR argued by stating that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee will establish that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction - HELD THAT:- On examining the paper book submitted by the assessee we are of the considered view that it is quite relevant for deciding the claim of the assessee for obtaining the benefit of deduction U/s. 54 / 54F. Assessee is not engaged in any other activities and solely dependent on her husband / family. Therefore, it is quite possible that the assessee might not have been able to provide the requisite documents before the Ld. Revenue Authorities at the time of hearing. Hence, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO with directions to admit the additional evidence filed before us and also any other relevant documents filed by the assessee for the first time and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with merit and law after providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI] Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Jurisdiction under section 147, Claim of deduction under section 54F, Additional evidence submission, Remitting the matter back to AO, Compliance with principles of natural justice.Delay in filing appeal & Condonation of delay:The appeal was filed with a delay of 2 days due to the assessee's inability to get leave from her employer. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit affirming the reasons beyond her control. The Tribunal, noting that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause, condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.Jurisdiction under section 147:The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) for issuing a notice under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Commissioner was criticized for rejecting the AO's ground of jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the rejection and directed the matter to be considered further.Claim of deduction under section 54F:The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction under section 54F, stating that she already owned a residential house. The Appellate Commissioner upheld this decision due to lack of evidence. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee, remitting the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.Additional evidence submission & Remitting the matter back to AO:The assessee submitted additional evidence supporting her claim of deduction under section 54/54F. The Tribunal found this evidence relevant and remitted the matter back to the AO for proper consideration, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard.Compliance with principles of natural justice:The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO with directions to admit the additional evidence and any other relevant documents filed by the assessee. This decision was made to ensure a fair and just consideration of the claim in accordance with merit and law, upholding the principles of natural justice.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes after considering the delay in filing, jurisdictional issues, denial of deduction under section 54F, submission of additional evidence, and the need for a fair evaluation of the matter. The decision emphasized the importance of complying with principles of natural justice and providing adequate opportunities for parties to present their case effectively.