SRI RANGASAMY RAJARAM,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the issue of cost of improvement for the building was not examined. The cost of improvement for the building could not be claimed by joint owners in their individual capacity as the building belonged to the corporate entity.
What were the facts?
The assessee, as a joint holder, sold land and factory building. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under capital gains invoking Section 50C due to stamp duty valuation being higher. The Principal Commissioner (Pr. CIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, citing that the AO failed to examine the indexed cost of improvement for the building.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for failing to examine the claim of cost of improvement on a building owned by a corporate entity by joint owners in their individual capacity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय �ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rangasamy Rajaram, ACIT बनाम 212-C, N.S.R. Road, Corporate Circle-1, / Vs. Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore-641 011. Coimbatore. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAPPR-8772-B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri V.Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 30-11-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01-12-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
By way of this appeal, the assessee assails the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 (Pr. CIT) vide impugned order dated 06-03-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 26-03-2022 making certain additions under the head capital gains.
During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee, as a joint holder, sold certain land with factory building and machineries. The land belonged to three directors of corporate entity viz. M/s Sri Ranga Creative Apparels India Pvt. Ltd. whereas the building was held by the corporate entity. The stamp duty valuation of the property was found to be higher. Accordingly, Ld. AO, invoking the provisions of Sec.50C, made certain addition in the hands of the assessee. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, observed that the assessee reduced indexed cost of land as well as indexed cost of building while computing capital gains which makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This issue was not considered by Ld. AO during assessment proceedings. The assessee pleaded that the issue was thoroughly analyzed by Ld. AO making adequate enquiries. The assessee also made submissions and furnished various documents supporting the case of the assessee on cost of improvement of land. However Ld. Pr. CIT maintained that indexed cost of improvement for Rs.233.44 Lacs as claimed was not in order. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to redo the assessment on this issue with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Upon perusal of assessment order, as well as queries raised during the course of assessment proceedings, it could be seen that issue of cost of improvement on building was nowhere examined and verified by Ld. AO. No submissions were made and there was no application of mind by Ld. AO on this issue. As per sale deed, it is only the corporate entity which is having right over the building. Therefore, such cost could not have been claimed by the joint owners in individual capacity. Non- consideration of impugned issue as flagged by Ld. Pr. CIT certainly makes the order amenable to revision u/s 263. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the same.
The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 01st December, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा23 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद5 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे7ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 01-12-2023 DS आदेशकीAितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु?/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडDफाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 50C
- M N S Barium Salts, Kadapa vs ITO, Ward-1, KadapaITA 2412/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sawalchand Chunilal Bafna HUF, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1), MumbaiITA 7492/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jagdishbhai Vasharambhai Italiya, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 150/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, Pune vs Assessing Officer Ward 2(2) Pune, PuneITA 2767/PUN/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026