KALPANA RAVIKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(40, CHENNAI

Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment, inter alia, making additions towards disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act at ₹.66,24,545/- and on account of long term capital gains at ₹.1,33,74,455/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on account of long term capital gains at ₹.1,33,74,455/-. With regard to the addition towards income from other sources, considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the interest income as per 26AS and adopt the figure of interest and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. AR Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate drew our attention to second para of the assessment order and submits that the Assessing Officer reproduced details of document furnished by the assessee, which includes details regarding improvements made during 2011 as well as payments made to the builders. He vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer did not allow the index cost and cost of improvement incurred by the assessee while computing the capital gains. The ld. AR drew our attention to e-proceeding response acknowledgement placed at page 1 of the paper book and submits that against the notice under section 250 of the Act, the assessee furnished various details before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same before concluding appellate order. The ld. AR prayed to give direction to the Assessing Officer for considering the working of capital gain on the indexation method provided at pages 63, 63A and 63B of the paper book in computing long term capital gains.

The ld. DR Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. CIT fairly conceded the matter may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is with regard to the addition of ₹.1,33,74,455/- made on account of long term capital gains. The contention of the assessee is that despite filing details and the same are reproduced in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act towards index cost of acquisition and cost of improvement incurred by the assessee, the details of which, we find at pages 63, 63A & 63B of the paper book. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer passed very cryptic order and even the computation of long term capital is not appearing in the assessment order. On perusal of the e-proceedings response acknowledgement placed on record in the form of paper book, we note that the assessee furnished various details before the ld. CIT(A) against the notice issued under section 250 of the Act, which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee could not file complete details during the course of assessment proceedings, is not justified. Under the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of pages 63, 63A & 63B of the paper book and pass order. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer as may be required for verification. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th July, 2025 at Chennai.