SYDNEY GOMES,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear even before the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to furnish necessary documents relating to the cost of acquisition. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2013-14. The assessment order was framed ex-parte by the AO and the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order as the assessee failed to appear despite notices. The AO computed long-term capital gains without considering the cost of acquisition. The assessee's grievance is that the cost of acquisition, including the market value as on 01.04.1981, was not considered, and indexation benefit was not granted.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to provide documents for cost of acquisition, including indexation benefit, especially when the proceedings were ex-parte before lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dt. 06/06/2024 of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2013-14.
The solitary grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITO erred in computing Long Term Capital Gain of Rs 2,31,67,200 without considering the cost the said Property as per section 48 of the Act. In doing so, the learned ITO failed to appreciate the fact that though the said Property was acquired before 1981, market value of the said Property as on 1.4.1981 shall be considered as cost as per provision of section 48 of the Act Thus, the learned ITO failed to comply with the provision of section 48 of the Act. In doing so, the learned ITO failed to grant the benefit of indexation of cost as per the provisions of section 48 of the Act. In view of the above, the learned ITO has erred in computing Long Term Capital Gain as per the provisions of Section 50C of the Act in the Appellants case.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. We decide to proceed ex-parte.
More judgments on Section 48
- Hansaben Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2762/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Banwari, Bhiwadi vs ITO, BhiwadiITA 1710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
