SINGANALLUR SUBRAMAN RADHAKRISHNAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 17.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2016-17. Stay petition is against the tax-demand arising on passing of impugned order.

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 2 :: 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drawing our attention to the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has not considered relevant evidences albeit filed during the first appellate proceedings has affected the adversely, the outcome of the impugned order. In this regard, he pointed out that during the assessment stage itself assessee wanted to file these evidences, but the AO without giving sufficient opportunity has passed the assessment order making huge addition of Capital-Gain at Rs.3.46 crores (in place of assessee’s computation of capital gain at Rs.6,30,360/-). According to the Ld.AR, the AO proposed impugned addition by issuance of a show-cause notice on 17.12.2018 and passed the impugned addition on 23.12.2018 (within 6 days) whereas the assessee had prepared the objection against the proposed addition along with documents to substantiate its claim, but since the AO passed the order hurriedly on 23.12.2018, the assessee could not upload the objection along with documents (since the portal got closed). Hence, assessee had no other alternative but to file the same before the Ld.CIT(A), who discarded it without even admitting it, which action is in violation of natural justice and hence relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216, the assessee pleads that the one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the AO.

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 3 :: 3. Per contra, Ld.DR objected to such a plea of the assessee and submitted that the assessee had been granted opportunity, but the assessee did not produce the evidences during the assessment stage but filed it for the first time before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly not considered it. Hence, the Ld.DR does want us to interfere with the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

(i) Value of property transferred as reported in AIR is higher than the value of property transferred as reported in Return of income (AIR 007 and schedule CG of ITR). (ii) Large deduction claimed u/s.548, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA (schedule CG of ITR)”. The AO, thereafter is noted to have served notices on the assessee and the assessee filed revised return on 06.09.2017 and filed reply, justifying the claim made for determining capital gain arising from sale of property at Rs.6,30,160/-. The AO is noted to have gathered the guideline value of the immovable property sold on 14.10.2015 from the SRO and found that

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 4 :: the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of collecting stamp duty is at Rs.3,67,80,000/-. Hence, he is noted to have given a show-cause notice to the assessee on 17.12.2018 requiring assessee to show cause as to why the capital gain should not be recomputed based on the details received from the SRO, Coimbatore. The relevant portion of the show-cause notice dated 17.10.2020 is as under : -

“2.1. Further on perusal of the document in No. 9709/2015 dated 14.10.2015 obtained from the SRO it is found that the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of of Dasm the transfer is at Rs.3,67,80,000/- 2.2. Further on perusal of the submissions made by you it is seen that you have not submitted the following details 1. Working for the capital gains 2. Basis for the working for the cost of acquisition with indexation claimed of Rs. 21,50,490/- 3. Proof for the claim of deduction of Rs. 78,79,510/- 2.3 Hence it is proposed to re-compute the Capital gains as under: 1. As per provisions of section 50C of the IT Act adopting the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority of Rs.3,67,80,000/- as deemed full value of consideration received. 2. Restricting the cost of acquisition in the absence of your proof for the claim 3. Disallowing the entire claim of deduction u/s 54 of Rs.78,79,510/- 3.0. You are here by requested to show cause as to why the assessement should not be completed on the above lines. Also, you are hereby requested to adhere to the due date as given above. No further adjournment will be granted. Please note that in case of non-compliance, it will treated as you have no objection for the addition/disallowance as proposed above and the assessment will be completed without further notice.

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 5 ::

The AO finding no response from the assessee is noted to have framed the assessment on 23.12.2018 by computing the long-term capital gain at Rs.3,46,49,510/- by computing it as under : - Document Registered value : Rs.1,00,00,000/- Deemed full value of consideration :Rs.3,67,80,000/- [The value adopted by the Stamp valuation Authority for the purpose of collecting stamp Duty (Value as per section 50C of the Act)] Less: Indexed cost of acquisition : Rs. 21,20,490/- Cost as on 01.04.1981: Rs. 196160 (Rs.196160*1081/100) Long Term Capital Gains : Rs.3,46,59,510/- 5. On appeal, the assessee is noted to have challenged the determination of capital gains of Rs.3,46,59,510/- as well as disallowance of the claim of deduction for investment in residential property. Assessee is noted to have filed certain documents as additional evidences which have been rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) (refer Para 7.8 of the impugned order) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, and thus confirmed the action of the AO. The main grievance of the assessee is that the AO has not given proper opportunity to the assessee during the assessment stage. In this regard, inter alia the assessee has brought to our notice that the show-cause notice proposing the adoption of the values assessed by

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 6 :: the Stamp Valuation Authority as per Section 50C of Rs.3,67,80,000/- as deemed full value of consideration was given on 17.12.2018 along with the proposal to restricting the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and also disallowing the entire claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act. The AO is noted to have framed the assessment on 23.12.2018, without awaiting the response of the assessee (i.e. within 6 days). Assessee has brought to our notice that he had prepared his objection against the proposal and could not upload the same by 23.12.2018, may be due to glitches in the internet/system. And by the time, assessee tried to upload on 24.12.2018, the portal of department wasn’t accepting it on the ground that AO passed the assessment order on 23.12.2018 (i.e. within 6 days). Hence, the assessee had no other alternative, but to file additional evidences during the appellate stage which has been discarded by the Ld.CIT(A), alleging afterthought on the part of the assessee. Such an action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. If the CIT(A) desired not to admit the additional evidence, he was bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 46A, which hasn’t be followed in this case, vitiating the impugned order being fragile in law. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A)’s action of discarding the evidence in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be accepted and therefore, for the ends of justice and fair-play, we set

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 7 :: aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and finding that the AO didn’t give proper opportunity at the assessment stage as noted (supra), relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company (supra), we restore the assessment back to the file of AO for de nova assessment. The assessee is at liberty to file the documents to substantiate its claim and the AO to consider the same and after hearing the assessee frame the assessment in accordance to law. 6. Stay petition is infructuous, in the light of our action supra, hence, stands dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 03rd day of June, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरी रामा राव) (एबी टी. वक�) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 03rd June, 2026. YS

ITA No. 151 /Chny/2026 & SA 3/Chny/2026 (AY 2016-17) Singanallur Subraman Radhakrishnan. :: 8 :: आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

Digitally signed YASHVI by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.06.20 16:19:08 +05'30'