2024 (8) TMI 1118 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision; Dismisses Assessee's Appeal Due to Misclassification of Income and Lack of Declared Capital Gain.

Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen Versus The ACIT/Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 1 (1), Chennai.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal condoned a six-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the ... New plea of deduction u/s 54F - no capital gain was declared in the return of income. The income declared therein on profit from “business or profession” - AR submits that due to mistake by the previous authorized representative and the assessee, the capital gain deduction under section 54F of the Act could not be claimed in the return of income - HELD THAT:- We note that admittedly, no capital gain was shown in the return of income and no claim also made under section 54F of the Act. Had the assessee been declared capital gain in the return of income and no claim under section 54F of the Act thereon, this Tribunal would have directed the AO to consider the same by taking support from the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] As discussed above, the assessee himself declared income under the head “business or profession” and no capital gain admitted. Therefore, having no declaration of capital gain in the return of income, directing the Assessing Officer to consider the claim under section 54/54F of the Act, does not arise. As rightly pointed out by the ld. DR that there is no tax liability standing in the hands of the assessee, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Consideration of new plea under section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Delay in filing appeal:The appeal was filed with a delay of six days, and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, which was accepted as the reasons for the delay were found to be bonafide. The delay was condoned after hearing both parties.Consideration of new plea under section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee raised an additional ground seeking benefit under section 54/54F of the Act, claiming that the previous Authorized Representative's mistake prevented the claim. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional ground as no capital gain was declared in the return of income. The assessee requested the matter to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the deduction claim under section 54F, but the ld. CIT(A) opposed it, stating that the change in the head of income was impermissible under the law.The Tribunal noted that no capital gain was declared in the return of income, and the income was declared under the head of 'business or profession.' The assessee's argument about the mistake by the previous representative was presented, but since no capital gain was admitted or claimed under section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal found no basis to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the claim. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) but concluded that without a declaration of capital gain, directing consideration under section 54/54F did not apply. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the grounds raised by the assessee.The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 21st August 2024 at Chennai.