Case Law Details
Case Name : Smt. Seshu Jaggaiah Vs Income-tax Officer, Business Ward XIV (2), Chennai* (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 1995-96
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Chennai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH ‘D’
Smt. Seshu Jaggaiah
V/s.
Income-tax Officer, Business Ward XIV (2), Chennai*
DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 2147 (MAD.) OF 2011
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96]
MARCH 20, 2012
ORDER
Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice-President
This appeal filed by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-XII at Chennai, dated 21-10-2011. The appeal arises out of the order passed under section 143(3), read with se...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
0 Comments
Cancel reply
IMPROMPTU:
Points requiring a special noting:
1. As observed, the authoritative view repeatedly taken is this: In a case where for no fault/for reasons or in circumstances beyond the control of taxpayer, any one OR more of the condition(s) for entitlement could not be satisfied, the claim cannot be rightly rejected.
2. Instances commonly across are these: The timeframe as envisaged by law could not be complied with, mostly because of the otherwise avoidable delay; and, more often than not, the builder has no valid reasons or circumstances to offer/explain, to which the delay can be attributed. So much so, ‘completion’ happens to take place invariably beyond the committed date by builder.
Even so, as the law stipulates, payments having been made as committed to builder, those are appropriated towards the ‘purchase’ by taxpayer, and thereby fulfils the essential condition. In such instances, denial of exemption, in one’s conviction, will be in violation of the law; also in contravention of the supervening so-called “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE”.
3. In the reported ITAT case, the assessee’s contentions have been rejected on the peculiar facts / circumstances underlined in the concluding para. 13 of the order; holding that those could not be accepted as ‘supervening impossibilities’. This, therefore, is an aspect to be necessarily borne in mind in a dispute of the kind in any given case.
in one’s perceptive opinon,it would be very much in the interests of a judicous administration of the law, should the CBDT come out with a ‘beneficial’ circular, conceding the judicial view thus far cnsistently taken, righteously so; and,thereby put an end to the otherwise inconclusive but infructuous ongoing battle of wits. The soonest the CBDT does so, the better.