ACIT, CIRCLE(IT)-1(2)(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SATINDER PAL SINGH CHADDHA, DELHI

ITITA 5147/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee, Satinder Pal Singh Chaddha, sold two immovable properties in Okhla and Ghaziabad. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed claims related to the cost of acquisition for both properties, transfer expenses for the Okhla property, and deduction under section 54EC. The total income was assessed at Rs. 5,72,71,651/-. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, relying on a valuation report submitted at the appellate stage. The AO had raised objections in a remand report regarding discrepancies and lack of evidence. The Revenue's appeal to the ITAT argues that the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claims without adequately addressing the AO's objections and without proper verification or documentary evidence.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Okhla property was used for business since the 1980s, implying capital gains should be treated as short-term under section 50, as it is a depreciable asset. Regarding the Ghaziabad property, the assessee failed to submit crucial documents like the allotment letter and sale deed, providing only an offer of allotment dated 30.10.2010. Without particulars of the specific plot, date of purchase, and cost of acquisition, computing capital loss/gain was not possible. The CIT(A) was not justified in accepting the indexed cost of acquisition without requisite details and verification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the matter requires fresh consideration at the Assessing Officer's level. The case was restored to the jurisdictional AO for denovo consideration, with an opportunity for the assessee to furnish necessary documents. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A, as the assessee had sufficient opportunities during assessment proceedings and the case did not fall under the exceptions of Rule 46A(1)? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the valuation report for determining the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.2001 for the Okhla property, disregarding discrepancies regarding the date of construction, plinth area, and lack of stamp duty value data highlighted by the AO? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the indexed cost of acquisition for the Okhla property without proper verification of valuation, cost of improvement, and year of construction? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing transfer expenses (brokerage) of Rs. 1,00,000/- without supporting evidence, as pointed out by the AO? 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the indexed cost of acquisition for the Ghaziabad property despite a lack of clear evidence of ownership and date of acquisition? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing set-off of Long-Term Capital Loss (LTCL) from the Ghaziabad property against Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from the Okhla property and carry forward of LTCL without proper verification? Assessee's contentions: The assessee, a resident of the UK, could not make proper compliance during assessment due to Covid-19 and health issues, preventing the filing of the valuation report. The CIT(A) considered this report and the AO's objections before granting relief. Revenue's contentions: The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's submissions without adequately addressing the AO's objections in the remand report and without due verification and documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 46A,Section 55(2)(b),Section 50,Section 54EC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Advs
For Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.03.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26.06.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), Delhi-42, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 26.11.2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to IT(IT)A No.- 5147/Del/2025 Sa"nder Pal Singh Chaddha as the ‘the Act’) by the ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), (International Taxation), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 587 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →