Case Law Details
Late Smt. Kanta Chandak Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur)
On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the issue raked up by Ld PCIT relate to the deduction claimed by these assessees u/s 54 of the Act, which was allowed by the AO in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that these assessees could not furnish proper materials and could not make proper representation before ld. PCIT. He submitted that ld. PCIT had set aside the deduction claimed by the assessees u/s 54 of the Act and directed the AO to examine the claim afresh. In the set aside proceedings, the AO has accepted that the assessees have invested capital gains in construction of residential house. However, the AO has not fully allowed the deduction as claimed by these assessees, on the reasoning that these assessees have also constructed commercial building. The ld. AR submitted that the assessees have not constructed any commercial building as averred by the tax authorities. He submitted that the assessees would like to place certain records before ld. PCIT so that he could be satisfied with regard to the claim made u/s 54 of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed that these assessees may be provided with one more opportunity to present their cases properly before the ld. PCIT.
We heard ld. DR on these issues and perused the record. Since the issues contested in these appeals relate to factual aspects and since the ld. AR submits that the assessees would be in a position to place all availabile records to prove their claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Act before Ld PCIT, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that these assessees may be provided with one more opportunity to present their case before ld. PCIT. Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by ld. PCIT in the hands of these assessees and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JODHPUR
Both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the revision orders passed by ld. PCIT, Bikaner in their respective hands and both the appeals relate to the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Since the issue contested in these appeals are emanating from identical set of facts, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
3. The assessee Smt Kanta Devi Chandak is wife of the other assessee Sh. Mohan Lal Chandak. Smt Kanta Devi Chandak has since expired and hence her appeal has been filed by Sh. Mohan Lal Chandak in his capacity as legal heir of Smt Kanta Devi Chandak.
4. Both the appeals are barred by limitation by 1390 days. Both the assessees have filed petitions requesting the Bench to condone the delay in filing the appeals before Hon’ble ITAT.
5. We heard the parties on this preliminary issue. The ld. AR submitted that Sh. Mohan Lal Chandak is an aged person and is suffering from various medical problems. He is also not very much educated. He has under went for heart surgery in the F.Y 2017-18 and is also suffering from sugar and blood pressure problems. Hence he has been regularly visiting hospitals for treatment of his Heart, Sugar, and Blood Pressure problem. Accordingly, he could not give much attention to the income tax matters and inadvertently omitted to prefer appeals against the orders passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act in his hands and also in the hands of his wife. The ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing appeals before Hon’ble ITAT is on account of reasonable cause and accordingly prayed that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned.
6. We heard the ld. DR on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee in the petitions and also considering the submissions made by ld. Counsel, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause in not filing appeals before the Tribunal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing these appeals before the Hon’ble ITAT and admit them for hearing.
7. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the issue raked up by Ld PCIT relate to the deduction claimed by these assessees u/s 54 of the Act, which was allowed by the AO in the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that these assessees could not furnish proper materials and could not make proper representation before ld. PCIT. He submitted that ld. PCIT had set aside the deduction claimed by the assessees u/s 54 of the Act and directed the AO to examine the claim afresh. In the set aside proceedings, the AO has accepted that the assessees have invested capital gains in construction of residential house. However, the AO has not fully allowed the deduction as claimed by these assessees, on the reasoning that these assessees have also constructed commercial building. The ld. AR submitted that the assessees have not constructed any commercial building as averred by the tax authorities. He submitted that the assessees would like to place certain records before ld. PCIT so that he could be satisfied with regard to the claim made u/s 54 of the Act. Accordingly, he prayed that these assessees may be provided with one more opportunity to present their cases properly before the ld. PCIT.
8. We heard ld. DR on these issues and perused the record. Since the issues contested in these appeals relate to factual aspects and since the ld. AR submits that the assessees would be in a position to place all availabile records to prove their claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Act before Ld PCIT, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that these assessees may be provided with one more opportunity to present their case before ld. PCIT. Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by ld. PCIT in the hands of these assessees and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh. We also direct the assessees to furnish all information and explanations relating to the issues examined by ld. PCIT.
9. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th November, 2022.
