SMT. SHANKAR VIJI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

ITA 1750/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 October 2026AY 2014-158 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 604 days, which was condoned as the reasons provided by the assessee were found to be bona fide. Regarding the cost of improvement, the Ld. CIT(A) had restricted it to Rs. 38,85,000/- based on the sale deed value of the building, while the assessee had claimed an indexed cost of Rs. 83,130,078/-. The assessee submitted a sale deed dated 18.11.2013, construction specifications, and a valuation report from 2006. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. AR drew attention to the valuation report dated 28.08.2006, which valued the building after depreciation at Rs. 38,44,100/-. The Ld. AR also pointed to the existence of the building through a key plan and pictures. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of a sale deed, income-tax computation, and a valuation report by a Chartered Engineer. However, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the cost of improvement or the expenses. The operative directions are not detailed in the provided text. The judgment mentions that the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the cost of improvement to Rs. 38,85,000/- and rejected the relief on expenses of Rs. 98,600/-, holding the ground on cost of improvement as 'Partly Allowed' and the ground on expenses as 'dismissed'. The Tribunal's own decision on these matters is not fully elaborated in the provided text.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information that TDS was deducted on the sale of immovable property for Rs. 98,60,000/-. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 8,91,710/-. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted the assessee claimed a sale consideration of Rs. 98,68,000/-, reduced by purchase cost, cost of improvement (Rs. 83,130,078/- indexed), and transfer expenses (Rs. 98,600/-). The assessee failed to substantiate the cost of improvement and expenses. The AO made an addition of Rs. 83,013,078/- (cost of improvement) and Rs. 98,600/- (expenses) under Section 144 r.w.s 147. The CIT(A) restricted the cost of improvement to Rs. 38,85,000/- (based on the sale deed value of the building) and confirmed the disallowance of expenses.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the cost of improvement to Rs. 38,85,000/- when the assessee had claimed an indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 83,130,078/- and provided supporting documents like a sale deed, construction specifications, and a valuation report from 2006. Assessee's Contention: The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submitted documents, including the sale deed dated 18.11.2013, which showed the building value at Rs. 38,85,000/- and construction specifications. The assessee also submitted a paper book with a valuation report from 2006 valuing the building at Rs. 38,44,100/-, along with pictures of the building, to substantiate the cost of improvement. The assessee relied on *ACIT Vs Sambandam Dorairaj* and *Shri Sajai Radhikamohan Kar Vs ACIT*. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding this issue, beyond what was presented before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 194-IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 12.08.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre [hereinafter referred to as “the

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →