INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. I P ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. MILLENIUM MERITECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, observing that the AO CPC's disallowance was a clerical error and directed the AO to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2023-24. The AO CPC, in the intimation order under section 143(1), disallowed a cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 9,80,19,310/- claimed under capital gains without providing any opportunity of hearing or reasons.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of cost of improvement under section 143(1) without providing opportunity of hearing and reasons is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEWDELHI
Date of hearing 03.07.2025 Date of 18.07.2025 pronouncement ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR JM:
The revenue preferred the appeal, challenging the order dated 07- 05-2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Addl/ JCIT (A)-3, Bengaluru pertaining to A.Y. 2023-24.
Income Tax Officer v. Millenium Meritech Private Limited New Delhi A.Y. 2023-24 2 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1) "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.JCIT(Appeal) has rightly allowed the deduction of cost of improvement under the head Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 9,80,19,310/- claimed in its return of income, thereby ignoring the addition made by the AO CPC in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act? 2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld..JCIT(Appeal) has rightly allowed the deduction of cost of improvement under the head Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 9,80,19,310/- claimed in its return of income after considering it to be clerical error made on the part of the AO CPC without even verifying the claims of indexed cost of improvement claim by the assessee? 3) That the department craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT is finally heard or disposed of."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.18,29,35,390/- on 28-10-2023 for A.Y. 2023-24. In the intimation u/s. 143 (1), of the Act the income of the assessee has been computed at Rs.28,09,54,700/- after making addition / adjustments of Rs.9,80,19,310/- by not allowing the Income Tax Officer v. Millenium Meritech Private Limited New Delhi A.Y. 2023-24 3 deduction of cost of improvement under the head capital gain. The AO CPC has disallowed the total cost of improvement amounting to Rs.9,80,19,317/- as claimed by the assessee without giving any opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 07-05- 2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- Ground of appeal 2: From the facts on record, it is evident that the AO CPC in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) has disallowed the cost of improvement along with the cost of indexation amounting to Rs. 9.80.19.317/- as claimed by the appellant in the return of income under the head of Capital Gains. The AO CPC has not given any reason for the disallowance made. Therefore, the disallowance made seems to be a clerical error and the whole cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 9.80.19.317/- cannot be disallowed in the intimation u/s 143(1), as this is not prima facie adjustment. Hence the AO is directed to pass the correct speaking order i. e order u/s 143(3)/147, if any discrepancy is found in the cost of improvement claimed by the appellant after dual verification. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO CPC appears to be a clerical error, Hence the contention of Income Tax Officer v. Millenium Meritech Private Limited New Delhi A.Y. 2023-24 4 the appellant is accepted in the benefit of doubt. The disallowance of Rs. 9,80,19,317/- made in the intimation order u/s 143(1) is hereby deleted. The appellant gets relief of Rs. Rs. 9,80,19,317/-. The appeal filed on the ground of appeal
2 is allowed. Ground of appeal 3 & 4 : The AO is directed to calculate the correct tax payable along with accurate interest u/s. 234B and 234C as per provisions of the IT Act. The appeal filed on the grounds of appeal 3 & 4 is allowed. The appeal filed on ground of appeal 1 is general in nature does not require any specific adjudication.
6. In the result, the appeal is Allowed.
4. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the order was passed without any reasons. He prayed that order be set aside. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that LD. CIT(A) has directed the AO to pass the correct and speaking order, now order has been passed by the AO. During the course of hearing the assessee has filed the copy of the order which as under:
Income Tax Officer v. Millenium Meritech Private Limited New Delhi A.Y. 2023-24 5 Income Tax Officer v. Millenium Meritech Private Limited New Delhi A.Y. 2023-24 6 5.We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record.
Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the AO has passed the order without reasons. Ld. CIT(A) has examined the issue in the correct prospective and rightly directed the AO to pass the correct speaking order. In the Compliance of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the AO passed the fresh order. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 18 /07/2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026