ASHA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(1), KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) are that the assessee had filed her return of income for AY 2023-24 showing total income of ₹5,28,910/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold one immovable property for sale consideration of ₹19,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') added a sum of ₹13,31,720/- to the total income of the assessee as long-term capital gain on account of the sale of the said immovable property and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹16,50,210/- u/s 143(1) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) who vide order dated 19.11.2025 dismissed all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before him including the denial of indexed cost of acquisition by the Ld. AO in the case of long term capital asset being immovable property which was contrary to the provisions of section 48 of the Act and secondly, the Ld. AO erring in not allowing deduction of indexed cost of acquisition amounting to ₹17,14,580/- from the sale consideration of ₹19,50,000/- resulting in wrong determination of long- term capital gain on sale of immovable property amounting to ₹13,31,720/- but wrongly mentioned in the result that the appeal filed by the appellant for the AY 2023-24 was allowed herewith.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition in respect of sale of long-term capital asset being immovable property was not granted to the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered and adjudicated upon the valuation report determining the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.2001 which was duly filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings vide submission dated 09.01.2025 and which was material to the issue and a piece of evidence relevant for the computation of capital gains. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the materials and submission supported by documentary evidence had been completely ignored. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. In this case, in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 22.12.2024, the indexed cost of acquisition was not allowed. Before the Ld. CIT(A), in the Statement of Facts, it was submitted as under:

The assessee filed the appeal on the ground of denial of indexed cost of acquisition which works out to ₹17,14,580/- from the sale consideration of ₹19,50,000/- resulting in wrong determination of capital gains from sale of the property which was assessed at ₹13,31,720/- while the same should have been assessed at ₹2,10,420/- . The Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the submission of the assessee, the details of the intimation issued but as the assessee did not produce even single documentary evidence to substantiate the original cost of acquisition, the year of acquisition, the share of ownership and other details; relying upon several judicial pronouncements, he dismissed Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee. However, in para 8 he has ITA No(s). 87/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2023-24 mentioned that the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2023-24 is allowed. The Bench was of the view that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of both the grounds of appeal and the final findings is contradictory and the assessee has also assailed the order on the ground of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the Bench was of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the appeal may be remanded to be decided afresh. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the appeal is restored to his file to be decided afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the various submissions relating to the cost of acquisition of the property and working of the indexed cost of acquisition as per law and thereafter decide the appeal. The Ld. AO shall also be given an opportunity of being heard, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in her appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th April, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 16.04.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Addl/JCIT(A)-Panaji.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order