JAGDISHWAR DARGA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1682/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 September 2026AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, emphasizing a justice-oriented and liberal approach. On merits, the Tribunal held that the chargeability of capital gains is inextricably linked to the transfer transaction itself. The sale deed dated 29/04/2017 clearly indicated the property was sold during the period relevant to AY 2018-19, not AY 2017-18. Although a portion of the sale consideration was received during the year under consideration, the actual transfer, as evidenced by the sale deed, occurred in the subsequent year. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, which states that chargeability and computation of capital gains must go hand in hand with the transfer transaction. As the transfer did not occur in AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 14,63,600/- towards LTCG was vacated. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jagdishwar Darga, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) addition of Rs. 14,63,600/- towards long-term capital gains (LTCG) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on information that the assessee sold immovable property for Rs. 60 lakhs but did not file a return. The assessee claimed the property was acquired in FY 1983-84 and sold for Rs. 60 lakhs, resulting in a LTCG of Rs. (-)2,021/- after considering indexed cost of Rs. 60,08,082/-. The AO, finding no supporting documentation for the cost of acquisition and verifying government values, determined LTCG at Rs. 58,54,526/-, attributing Rs. 14,63,600/- to the assessee's share. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal, and if so, on what grounds? - Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to the assessee's age-related ill health and reliance on a tax consultant who also fell ill. The assessee, being a retired government employee, is not conversant with tax procedures and believed his consultant would handle proceedings. The present AR, the consultant's son, took over the matter. A liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted for condonation, citing the Supreme Court decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO. - Revenue's Contention: The revenue objected to the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 14,63,600/- towards long-term capital gains is justified, considering the sale of the property occurred in the subsequent assessment year? - Assessee's Contention: The property was sold via a sale deed dated 29/04/2017, which falls within the period relevant to AY 2018-19, not AY 2017-18. The sale deed, placed on record, supports this claim. Therefore, the capital gains should not be taxed in AY 2017-18. - Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below. It was argued that the assessee did not disclose this material fact and had previously submitted computations of indexed cost and LTCG for AY 2017-18. The assessee had not raised the contention of the sale occurring in the succeeding year before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 48

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri B Laxmi Kanth, SR-AR

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed

by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre,

ITA 1682/HYD/2026 JAGDISHWAR DARGA

Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 18/02/2026, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under sect

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →