JEKKUN VENKATRAMAN KRISHNAMOORTHY,TRICHY vs. ITO WARD 1, TANJORE, TANJORE

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. 245/Chny/2026 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jekkum Venkatraman Krishnamoorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.4/37, Rettai Street, Ward -1, Ayyampettai (PO), Thanjavur. Thanjavur - 614 201. [PAN: AOLPK-6289-A] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*थ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. P. Ramya, CA )*थ( की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 28.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2026 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 07.11.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (herein after “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

along with Rule 29 petition. She prayed to remand the matter to the file of

AO for a fresh consideration of additional evidences at page no. 8 & 15

with reference to indexed cost of improvement and page no. 16 to 41 with

reference to addition made u/s. 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein

after “the Act”),

at para no. 2.4.2, wherein the AO denied deduction of indexed cost of

improvement for not providing any documentary evidence in support of

the said claim made in return of income. On perusal of Volume-II of

paper book at page no. 6 to 35, we note that the said documents of sale

deed dated 02.02.2015 was not available before the AO as well as the

ld.CIT(A). Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld.AR, it seems

no evidence was brought on record before the AO which is evident from

para no. 2.4.2 of the assessment order. We deem it proper to remand the

matter to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration. The AO shall

consider evidences in support of the indexed cost of improvement as may

be filed by the assessee and pass order in accordance with law.

3 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

Act. It is noted that the AO added an amount of Rs.7,89,029/- for non-

availability of bank account during the course of assessment. On perusal

of the page no. 36 to 41, consisting of parties who were given

loans/financial assistance to assessee for construction activities are

admittedly not available before the AO and ld.CIT(A). Therefore,

considering the said material evidence as fresh evidence which were not

filed before the AO and ld.CIT(A) at first instance, we deem it proper to

remand the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration. The AO

shall consider the same and pass order. The assessee is liberty to file

evidences in support of his claim.

purposes. Order pronounced on 15th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 15.06.2026 JPV आदेश की )ितिलिप अ0ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ(/Appellant, 2.)*थ(/ Respondent,

4 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No.245 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 245 245/Chny/2 245 /Chny/2 /Chny/2026 /Chny/2 026 026 026

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.17 11:58:49 +05'30'