TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 645
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not been passed u/s 144 and that the mentioning of section 144 in last para of the assessment order is an inadvertent mistake which is required to be ignored whereas the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed u/s 144 for non-compliance to final SCN dated 07.12.2019. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not taking into the consideration the fact that no proper & adequate opportunity of hearing was granted by the A.O. and thus, there has been violation of natural justice on the part of the A.O. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 2,58,34,383/- on account of purchase of residential house property at Delhi out of sale proceeds of land at Patna. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that the assessee has not furnished the requisite details regarding claim of deduction u/s 54F either before the A.O. or during the appellate proceeding whereas the fact remains that the requisite details were submitted before both the authorities. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in ignoring the legislative intent behind provisions of sections 54 and 54F which are ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had received Rs. 4,95,59,000/- from Arnyana Engycon Pvt. Ltd. and TDS of Rs. 2,47,795/- was deducted by the buyer u/s 194-IA of the Act, and it was also observed that the assessee had received Rs. 15,00,000/- from Chitwan Blenders & Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. as rent and the tenant had deducted TDS of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 194-IB of the Act. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 30/11/2019 in response to which the reply was filed by the assessee. As regards the exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act, the assessee had submitted purchase deed of only the new asset against which the deduction was claimed. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a final show cause notice. Subsequently, the total capital gain was worked out at Rs. 2,52,74,403/- which was lower than the capital gain of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. However, the exemption u/s 54 of the Act was not allowed as the immovable property shown by the assessee was not a residential house. Further, the exemption u/s 54F of the Act was also not allowed as the assessee neither claimed any exemption u/s 54F of the Act nor had provided any details regarding all the applicable conditions deemed to be fulfilled as requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following chart". 6.1.2 It is contended that the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee for clerical mistake of the section under which this exemption is claimed, whether it is section 54 or section 54F. The assessee submitted before the AO that the mistake was inadvertent. However, details of sale of land where the capital gain arises and purchase, cost of house property in New Delhi in which capital gain was utilized were also given. Since all details were available, it was the duty of the Taxing Authority to give all statutory allowance of exemption to the assessee, even when the assessee failed to claim that exemption. Accordingly, it is claimed that the AO's action was arbitrary, illegal and against provisions of law. She has relied on various case laws including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty (1966) 60 ITR 239 (SC) and Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1964) 52 ITR 583 (SC). 6.1.3 I have considered the submission carefully. The AO has referred to the issue in para 7 mentioning that "the assessee did not sell a residential house, therefore, the claim of exemption u/s 54 was not correct". The AO has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... AO, he did not requisition any specific material in the final show cause notice dated 07.12.2019 and thus, the observation of the Ld. AO at page 4 that the assessee had not provided any details as requisitioned is contrary to the assessment record. It is further submitted that the timelines allowed for compliance in all the notices issued by the Ld. AO were too short and further proper and adequate opportunity of being heard was not allowed. While passing the impugned assessment order, the Ld. AO has arbitrarily disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act for the reasons that: i) The assessee had not claimed the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. ii) The immovable property sold by the assessee is not a residential house and therefore, deduction u/s 54 of the Act is not permissible. iii) No details regarding fulfilment of the deduction u/s 54F of the Act has been brought on record. 5. It is further submitted that it would be evident from the assessment order that the Ld. AO had conducted enquiry from official website of Government of Bihar i.e. www.bhumijankari.com and had not found any other property, be it residential or otherwise, in the name of the assessee and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Ld. AO nor during the appellate proceeding had submitted or discussed as to how she fulfilled various conditions for allowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. It is submitted that the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed along with the appeal memo wherein the appellant had specifically stated that the new asset was the only residential property acquired out of the sale proceeds of land and thus she qualifies for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the deduction and without allowing opportunity of personal hearing and without considering the settled judicial precedents quoted in the written submission including that of Mumbai and Bangalore ITAT reported in (2019) 107 Taxmann.com 180/ (2021) 124 Taxmann.com 201 has affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and thereby deduction u/s 54F of the Act was arbitrarily declined. The submissions on the assessment order being passed u/s 144 of the Act, the violation of principles of natural justice have been filed in support of the claim along with the following three case laws: i) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inadvertently the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act but had invested in a residential house and section 54F of the Act was erroneously not mentioned although the same was applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. The revised computation was filed along with the purchase/sale deeds. In paper book filed, at page 5 para 9 in the assessment order, the Ld. AO has mentioned that the assessee had neither claimed any exemption u/s 54 of the Act nor had provided any details regarding whether she fulfils all the applicable conditions as mentioned in section 54 of the Act, therefore, the exemption u/s 54 of the Act is not allowable. 10. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the order of the Ld. AO may be confirmed. 11. We have considered the rival submission and have also gone through the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (supra) which has also been discussed in the case of CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra) by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. As mentioned by the assessee the limitation for allowing the deduction by filing a revised return is applicable only to the Assessing Officer and....