SHANMUGHASUNDHARAMRAMANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(6), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ ायपीठ, चेई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद! एवं ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! के सम(
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.888/Chny/2025
िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18
Shanmughasundharam
Ramanathan,
No.45, Theosophical Society,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAFPS 6078P]
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward-10(6),
Chennai.
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
( यथ/Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by :
Shri G. Akash, Advocate
GHथ की ओर से /Respondent by :
Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
12.06.2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18.06.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 08.01.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.12.2019. :- 2 -:
The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,63,43,220/-. The assessee has sold immovable property for total consideration of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- and declared Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 13,53,87,969/-. In the assessment order, the A.O has computed LTCG after considering the indexed cost of acquisition as on 1990-91 as against 1980-81 taken by the assessee. The A.O has also disallowed the cost of improvement to the extent of 20% of the claimed amount of Rs.93,75,000/- and commission expenses related to the transfer of property to the extent of Rs 2,00,000/- in the computation of income on the ground that the assessee failed to provide supporting evidences. The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and raised the following grounds: “1. The AO erred in passing the impugned order without considering the submissions of the Appellant in a proper pespective. The AO erred in completing the assessment in a tasty manner
The AO erred in considering the base year indexation as 2009- 2010 instead of 1981-1982. The AO ought to have consider the value as on 1.4.81. 3. The AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A a mounting to Rs. 1,85,648/-, any event, the interest levied is high, arbitrary and excessive which needs to be deleted in toto.
The AO erred in levying interest u/s 234C amounting to Rs.76,426/- and u/s 234D amounting to Rs.1,65,053/-.In any event, the interest le vied is high, arbitrary and excessive which needs to be deleted in toto.” :- 3 -:
The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal by directing the A.O to recalculate the indexed cost by adopting the base year as 1981-82. However, the assessee has filed present appeal challenging the disallowance 20% of the claimed cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 18,75,000/- and the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the A.O to adopt the cost of acquisition, taking the base year as 1981-82 but has not adjudicated the additional grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A) as under: “1. I sold a property during this relevant Assessment year and I also admitted capital gains in my Return of Income filed by me. The AO called for the details of value of land as on 01.04.1981 from the Sub-