What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it has the power to consider revised claims, unlike the AO who is bound by the original return. Therefore, the assessee's revised computation for LTCG should be considered.

The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) using an older Fair Market Value (FMV). Upon realizing the error, the assessee revised the computation with a later FMV and registered valuer's report. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the revised date of possession but applied indexation from the original computation year.

What were the issues?

Whether appellate authorities can consider revised claims not filed through a revised return, and if the ITAT has the power to entertain such claims.

Alok Tandon vs ACIT | s.250 | ITAT Dehradun 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DB: DEHRADUN BENCH

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR

Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DB: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 216/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Alok Tandon, Assistant Commissioner of Income 4, Pritam Road, Dalanwala, Tax, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248001. Vs Circle 1(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun-248001. PAN- ABKPT5384P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

The present appeal arises from order dated 25.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income declaring Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from sale of property. Apparently, the assessee computed

ITA No.- 216/DDN/2026 Alok Tandon LTCG by adopting Fair Market Value (FMV) relevant for F.Y. 2007-08. However, during assessment proceedings, after the AO pointed out that as per the sale deed possession of the said property had actually been handed over on 30.05.2009 only, the assessee revised his computation with a revised report of registered valuer determining FMV as on 30.05.2009. This particular action had the effect of an upward revision of LTCG determinable in this case. While completing the assessment, the Ld. AO accepted the date of possession, being 30.05.2009, but applied the indexation for F.Y. 2009-10. The point of dispute arose because the Ld. AO allowed the FMV adopted in the original computation relating to F.Y. 2007-08.

1.2 Aggrieved, the assessee approached ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed on the basis of finding given at pages 12 and 13, through which relying on the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. reported in [2006] 157 taxman 1 (SC), it was held that the assessee should have filed a revised return of income to enable the Ld. AO for a computation in line with the facts as claimed in the revised computation.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued that not only was the ld. CIT(A) empowered to consider the claim of the assessee for a revised computation of LTCG but even the ITAT was so empowered. It was the submission that in the case of “Goetze (India) ltd.” (supra), there is a mention that while the AO is bound by the fact that any revised computation has to be given effect only through a revised return of income, the same is not true of appellate authorities. It was the submission that due to an 2

ITA No.- 216/DDN/2026 Alok Tandon incorrect understanding of law, the error had occurred and as soon as the assessee was made aware of such error, he was immediately prompted to file a revised computation.

2.1 Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the findings given in the impugned order and stated that the assessee should have filed a revised return of income to claim anything other than whatever was submitted as per the return of income.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee was in error in adopting the values of F.Y. 2007-08, even when the possession had been handed over on 30.05.2009. However, on realizing his mistake, the assessee sought to rectify the same. On a perusal of the operative portion in the case of “Goetze (India) ltd.” (supra), we find that the following has been mentioned in paragraphs 4 of this order:

“4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. [Emphasis added] There shall be no order as to costs.”

3.1 It is clear that the ITAT is empowered to consider the claim of the assessee and we direct that the revised computation of the assessee should be considered and

ITA No.- 216/DDN/2026 Alok Tandon thereafter the correct LTCG should be worked out. For this limited purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for computing LTCG as per the revised computation filed by the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 21.08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

ALOK TANDON,DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments