SARIKA SAHIL KOLI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 4(3), PUNE

ITA 415/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 October 2026AY 2021-227 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction under Section 54F. The Tribunal observed that Section 54F requires the purchase of a new asset within a specified period before or after the transfer of the original asset, which the assessee had complied with by purchasing the flat on 17.12.2020, prior to the sale of the original asset on 24.12.2020. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the section does not stipulate that the amount received from the sale of the original asset must be exclusively invested in the new asset. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the assessee the deduction under Section 54F for the entire amount of investment in the new asset, as it exceeded the capital gain. Regarding the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of cash deposits, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It was noted that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the source of these deposits and had made contradictory submissions. Since the assessee did not discharge her onus, the addition was confirmed. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sarika Sahil Koli, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeal stemmed from an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income at Rs. 40,33,800/-, making an addition of Rs. 34,00,000/-. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 6,33,800/-. The assessee did not appear on multiple hearing dates before the ITAT, leading to an ex-parte hearing. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F for the purchase of a new residential flat, using funds from the sale of ancestral agricultural land. The CIT(A) restricted this deduction to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The assessee also faced an addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to Rs. 4,00,000/- when the assessee invested in a new residential property within the stipulated period, and the investment exceeded the capital gain. - Assessee's contention (implied from Tribunal's reasoning): The assessee invested in a new residential flat within the time frame prescribed by Section 54F, and the entire investment should be allowed as a deduction against capital gains, as there is no condition that the investment must be solely from the sale proceeds of the original asset. - Revenue's contention (implied from CIT(A)'s order): The CIT(A) restricted the deduction because the utilization of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the purchase of the new flat could not be substantiated with documentary evidence beyond Rs. 4,00,000/-, and the assessee also availed a home loan for the purchase. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee did not provide supporting documents to prove she did not own more than one residential property at the time of purchase. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention (implied from Tribunal's reasoning): The assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence or explanation for the cash deposits, and made contradictory submissions regarding the source (gold loan vs. sale of gold). - Revenue's contention (implied from CIT(A)'s order): The AO rightly made the addition under Section 69A as the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting documents, even after sufficient opportunities. The assessee also failed to prove that the asset sold was a long-term asset and submitted contradictory statements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250,Section 54F,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 on 26.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.12.2022. 2. Basic Facts :  On 06.04.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 09.04.2026.  On 09.04.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 28.04.2026.  On 28.04.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 24.06.2026. 2  On 24.06.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assesse

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →