KALPANA RAVIKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(40, CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अिमताभ शुƑा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ
Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &
Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/2025
िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2012-13
Kalpana Ravikumar,
No. 78, Block 2, 2nd Floor,
BBC City Paark, No. 76, Anna Salai,
Chinna Porur, Chennai 600 116. [PAN:AIUPR6455L]
Vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward 8(4),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
(ŮȑथŎ/Respondent)
अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by :
Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate
ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by :
Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing :
16.07.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18.07.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 372 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons.
Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit as I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25
2
well as medical reports, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made towards long term capital gain in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Brief facts emanating from record are that the assessee filed original return of income for AY 2012-13 on 30.03.2013 admitting income of ₹.2,90,000/-, but, however, the assessee has not admitted the interest earned out of term deposits in HDFC bank amounting to ₹.12,35,486/-. Further, according to the Assessing Officer, as per information available with the Department, the assessee sold immovable property at Coimbatore on 23.06.2011 for a sale consideration of ₹.2,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 29.03.2019, but, however, there was no compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25 3 Act. However, the assessee filed a letter dated 24.12.2019 along with following details: i. Sale deed dated 30.06.2011 vide document No. 2254/2011 for the sale of Coimbatore residential immovable asset for ₹.2,00,00,000/-.
ii.
Payment of ₹.30,00,000/- made to builder M/s. BBC City Park on 31.05.2011 through cheque.
iii.
Payment along with details regarding improvements made amounting to ₹.36,25,545/- during 2011. 5. 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.
I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25
4
7. 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.
I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25
5
9. 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
I.T.A. No.1320/Chny/25
6
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. (AMITABH SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 18.07.2025
Vm/-
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant,
2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent,
3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR &
5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.