AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2023-24.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eyes of law as well as on the facts of the case.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice.
3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming to the disallowance made by the AO u/s 54 of the Act of Rs. 1,16,29,934/-.
(ii)That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance despite the fact that the deduction was inadvertently claimed u/s 54F of the Act instead of 54 of the Act.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on the facts & in law in confirming the action of the AO in not giving the benefit of indexed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 10,89,188/-.
5.The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal belatedly beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed application along with affidavit for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and considering the rival contentions, we deem it fit to condone the delay as there being ‘sufficient cause.’ Delay condoned.
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 25.07.2023 declaring total income at Rs.28,56,770/- as ‘income from salary’, amounting to Rs.18 lakh; ‘income from house property’, at Rs.7,81,898/-; and ‘income from other sources’, amounting to Rs.2,74,875/- and had claimed exemption u/s 54F amounting to Rs.1,16,29,934/-as long-term capital gains. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for having claimed large deduction u/s 54F towards sale of residential house within three years and no deemed capital gain in the ROI. After duly considering the assessee’s submission, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 06.03.2025 determining the total income at Rs.1,55,75,892/- after making an addition/disallowance of Rs.1,27,19,122/- from long-term capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, who, vide order dated 11.08.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-compliance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee was non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the notices were issued to the wrong e-mail id which does not belong to the assessee. The ld. AR brought our attention to Form No.35 where the e-mail id specified by the assessee was different from the e-mail id to which the notice was sent by the Ld.CIT(A). Upon perusal of the same, it is evident that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notice to the wrong e-mail id, [email protected] instead of [email protected] which is the e-mail id specified in Form No.35. Hence, the non-compliance before the Ld.CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) by extending the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue de novo by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide on the merits in accordance with the law thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.