AO directed to reexamine cost of acquisition and section 54F deduction for HUF land sale

ITAT Jaipur remanded the matter to AO for fresh examination of cost of acquisition allowability and deduction under section 54F. The case involved land sale belonging to appellant's HUF in second round of litigation. AO had not considered the deduction due to non-submission of details by assessee, while CIT(A) gave different findings without commenting on records. Tribunal directed AO to decide both issues according to law after giving fair opportunity to assessee. Cost of Rs. 1000 per year imposed on assessee, payable to Prime Minister Relief Fund with receipt to be provided to AO.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Determination of the cost of acquisition.
3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal
The assessee filed an application for condonation of a 79-day delay in filing the appeal, citing long illness of the Karta of the HUF, supported by a medical certificate and affidavit. The assessee's representative argued that the delay was due to medical exigencies beyond control. The Revenue objected to the condonation but did not dispute the facts presented by the assessee.

Judgment: The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons sufficient and supported by evidence. The decision was backed by the precedent set in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471(SC), which advocates a liberal approach in condoning delays.

2. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition
The Assessing Officer (AO) took the cost of acquisition at Rs. 91,200/- based on a sale deed obtained from DIG Stamps, while the assessee claimed it to be Rs. 100/- per square yard. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's determination, noting the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence to support their claimed cost.

Judgment: The Tribunal noted the conflicting views between the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to re-examine the cost of acquisition based on the merits of the case, allowing the assessee to submit relevant documents and evidence.

3. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54F
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for investments made in a residential house from HUF funds. The AO denied the deduction due to lack of evidence supporting the investment and the timing of the construction. The CIT(A) also denied the deduction, arguing that the investment was made by the individual, not the HUF, and the property was not in the name of the HUF.

Judgment: The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s and AO's findings contradictory and noted the lack of detailed examination of the evidence. The matter was remanded back to the AO to re-assess the eligibility for deduction under Section 54F, considering the provisions of the Act and allowing the assessee to present supporting documents. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- per year on the assessee for non-submission of details, to be deposited in the "Prime Minister Relief Fund."

Conclusion:
Both appeals (ITA No. 515/JPR/2024 and ITA No. 528/JPR/2024) were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the AO to re-examine the issues of cost of acquisition and eligibility for deduction under Section 54F, based on the merits and additional evidence provided by the assessee.

---