SREEDHARAN ALAGIYASINGER SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 251/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 July 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that crucial documentary evidence was not placed before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with liberty to the assessee to submit evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but failed to furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54 when documentary evidence was not produced before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.251/Chny/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sreedharan Alagiyasinger Srinivasan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.112/1 New No.24/1 Narangi Non Corp. Ward 9(1), Flats, Thulasinga Perumal Koil Chennai. Street, Triplicane,Tamil Nadu, 600 005. [PAN: CUKPS6584D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. Abishek Murali, C.A. ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Swarnalatha, Adl CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016–17.

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR, Mr. Abishek Murali, C.A., requested to remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration with reference to the issue disputed before this Tribunal and drew our

2 I.T.A. No.251/Chny/2026

attention to Paper Book No. 1 consisting of 64 pages. He argued that the AO denied deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidence in respect of capital gains. He submits that the documentary evidence in Paper Book No. 1 is crucial in support of the issue claimed by the assessee.

3.

Ld. DR, Ms. Swarnalatha, Addl. CIT, reported no objection to remanding the matter to the file of the AO.

4.

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, we note that the AO determined the total income of the assessee, inter alia, making addition on account of long-term capital gain. Admittedly, there was no evidence in support of the claim made by the assessee before the AO, which is evident from page No. 7 of the assessment order. Further, it is also not disputed that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO for non-submission of evidence, which is evident from para No. 7 of the ld. CIT(A)'s order. On perusal of the paper book consisting of 64 pages, we note that admittedly the documentary evidence furnished in serial Nos. 1 to 5 of the paper book was not before the AO and the ld. CIT(A), and considering that the said documents are necessary for the fair adjudication of the issue involved, we deem it proper to remand the

3 I.T.A. No.251/Chny/2026

matter to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim and also can raise all remedies available under the law in the assessment before the AO. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th July, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 27.07.2026 MM/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.07.30 10:46:43 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →