KALLURAM GOTHAMCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-19(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3466/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had placed on record a valuation report from an approved valuer of the Indian Overseas Bank, which determined the open market value of the property at Rs. 40,00,000/-. This same value was adopted by the AO in the assessee's wife's case and confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that when a registered valuer opined the same value in the wife's case, it could be applied in the present case without deviation. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kalluram Gothamchand Jain, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2018-19. The dispute pertains to the indexed cost of acquisition of a property. The Assessing Officer (AO) adopted the indexed cost of acquisition as on the date of purchase in 1994, ignoring the value relied upon by the assessee, who had demolished the old property and constructed a new one. The assessee argued that the value adopted by him was fair and reasonable for determining long-term capital gains. He also pointed to his wife's assessment order, where the AO accepted a similar valuation, a position also upheld by the CIT(A) in her case. The AO confirmed the addition, and the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's view.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the correct indexed cost of acquisition for determining long-term capital gains, considering the demolition of the old property and construction of a new one, and whether the AO's adoption of the indexed cost as on the date of purchase in 1994 was justified, contrary to the assessee's valuation? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the AO erred by not adopting the indexed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001 or the value determined by the assessee, which was fair and reasonable. He relied on his wife's assessment order, where the AO accepted a similar valuation, and submitted that consistency should be followed. The assessee prayed for the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in tax matters, and the facts of the assessee's wife's case were different from the present case. The Revenue prayed not to accept the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 48

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ीयस यस िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं सु�ीपदमावती यस, लेखा सद�के सम� BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3466/Chny/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kalluram Gothamchand Jain Vs. The DCIT, Individiual, Non Corp. Circle 19(1), 142, Subramanya Mudali St., 2nd Floor, Chennai. Saidapet, Chennai-600015, TAMILNADU 600015. [PAN: ADVPC1686J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ��थ�कीओरसे/ Respondent by Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 24.09.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2026 : आदेश /O R D E RJ PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, it was submitted by the Ld. AR, Mr. M. Karunakaran, Advocate, that the AO adopted the indexed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001, ignoring the value as relied on by the assessee. He argued vehemently that the AO adopted the indexed cost of acquisition as on the

2 ITA No. 3466/Chny/2026 date of purchase of the property in 1994, which is not justified, wherein the assessee demolished the said old property and constructed a new property. He argued that the value adopted by the assessee is fair and reasonable to determine the long-term capital gain. He placed on record the assessment order of his wife at page No. 91 of the paper book and submits that the AO accepted the valuation adopted by the assessee therein. He submits that there is consistency followed by the AO in respect of the assessee’s case and the Ld. CIT(A) also, without considering the assessee’s wife’s case, confirmed the view of the AO. He prayed to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow the grounds of the appeal.

3.

Ld. DR, Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT, vehemently opposing the same, submits that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in tax matters, as the assessee’s wife’s case is different from the facts of the present case on hand. She prayed not to accept the submissions of the Ld. AR.

4.

Having heard both parties, we note that the assessee placed the valuation report on record at page No. 76 of the paper book, wherein the approved valuer of the Indian Overseas Bank inspected the property and examined the relevant documents. According to the valuer, considering various factors such as the specifications, present condition, age, future life, replacement cost, depreciation, and marketability potential of the property, he determined the open market value of the property at Rs. 40,00,000/-. We find that the same value was adopted by the AO in the case of the assessee’s wife, and the said order was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR that,

3 ITA No. 3466/Chny/2026 when the same value was opined by the registered valuer of the Indian Overseas Bank in the case of the assessee’s wife, as seen at page No. 91 of the paper book, the same value can be applied in the present case without any deviation. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the AO determining the fair market value without considering the report of the registered valuer of the Indian Overseas Bank. Thus, we direct the AO to delete the addition, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 14th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 14.10.2026 MM आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF. MANIS Digitally signed by MANISH H MISHRA Date: MISHRA 2026.10.16 09:40:29 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →