AMITA KUMARI PANIGRAHI,DHARAKOTE vs. ITO, WARD PHULBANI, PHULBANI

1 ITA No.108/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.108/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Amita Kumari Panigrahi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dharakote, S.O. Dakabara, Phulbani Ganjam PAN/GIR No. CKZPP 1188 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Trilochan Mohapatra, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26/05/2026

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.12.2025 in Appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10338485 for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. Shri Trilochan Mohapatra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee had purchased a land for Rs.2,53,980/- and had taken a loan from bank and constructed a poultry farm in the said land. During the assessment year 2022-23, the assessee had sold the said poultry farm. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had treated the sale consideration entirely as the income of the assessee and had denied the assessee the

2 ITA No.108/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 cost of improvement and had not allowed indexed cost of acquisition. It was the submission that on appeal, ld CIT(A) had taken the stand that part of sale consideration has been considered as long term capital gain and had given relief to the assessee. The ld CIT(A) considered the investment of Rs.1,72,35,764/- for the assessment year 2020-21 after allowing depreciation as liable to be short term capital gain and had determined the short-term capital gain at Rs.58,75,572/-. Ld AR drew our attention to pages 6 & 7 of the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has not considered the claim of the assessee in respect of reinvestment done by the assessee in respect of long-term capital gain and it was further submitted that the short-term capital gain as determined by the ld CIT(A) is erroneous. It was the submission that the details in regard to reinvestment was also not called for. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order, wherein, the Assessing Officer had granted the assessee substantial number of opportunities to explain the cost of improvement, etc. It was the submission that the assessee has not explained the source of investment itself during the earlier assessment years. It was the submission that the details were not submitted before the AO. It was the submission by ld Sr DR that the ld CIT(A) has considered the balance sheet filed by the assessee and has directed that LTCG is to be determined in respect of the land and the STCG at Rs.58,75,572/-. It was the submission that no other details have been produced before the ld CIT(A) also. It was the further submission that the claim of reinvestment cannot be considered insofar as it has not

3 ITA No.108/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 been claimed before the AO nor before the ld CIT(A). It was the prayer that the order of the ld CIT(A) be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has not produced any evidence before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings to substantiate his case. Simply filing the balance sheet does not make the same as production of all the evidence. The assessee is claiming cost of improvement which admittedly has not been proved. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has extracted the statement of the assessee in para 5.2 of his order. After considering the submissions of the assessee and after considering the documents filed, which is evident from para 6.2 to 6.3 of the order, ld CIT(A) has considered the provisions of section 50A of the Act and has determined the cost of acquisition of the land at Rs.3,16,975/- and balance has been treated as short term capital gain. Obviously, in the case of the land, the asset is more than 3 years old and same is not an 000asset which could be depreciated. This being so, the findings of the ld CIT(A) determining the LTCG has not been shown to be erroneous and same stands upheld. 6. Coming to issue of STCG, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has considered the written down value of the assets and has then determined the STCG. It must also be mentioned that the ld CIT(A) has recognized that in the case of improvement, the assessee has included the revenue expenditure, which have already been claimed as revenue expenditure and has excluded such revenue expenditure while determining the capital gains. The assessee has not dislodged the findings as arrived at by ld CIT(A) and the assessee has not been able to show anywhere that the assessee has raised the issue of reinvestment nor such evidences have been produced before the

4 ITA No.108/CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23 lower authorities. In view of above, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) to interfere and accordingly, uphold the same, 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 26/05/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Amita Kumari Panigrahi, Dharakote, S.O. Dakabara, Ganjam