Case Law Details
Hemalatha Mallapuram Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
The issue under consideration is whether the tribunal can give fresh opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence which assessee might not have been able to provide at the time of hearing?
In the present case, the assessee claimed deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. However, the Ld. AO disallowed the claim of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act by stating that she already owns one residential house other than the property sold. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Ld.AO for denying the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act because the assessee has not furnished any cogent evidence.
ITAT states that, on examining the paper book submitted by the assessee they are of the considered view that it is quite relevant for deciding the claim of the assessee for obtaining the benefit of deduction under section 54 / 54F of the Act. ITAT also find that the assessee is not engaged in any other activities and solely dependent on her husband / family. Therefore, it is quite possible that the assessee might not have been able to provide the requisite documents before the Ld. Revenue Authorities at the time of hearing. Hence, in the interest of justice, they hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO with directions to admit the additional evidence filed before us and also any other relevant documents filed by the assessee for the first time and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with merit and law after providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
