AMRISH SANJAY BIDAYE,NAVI PETH,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11,, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 306/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 November 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. However, on merits, the CIT(A) did not provide relief, citing non-furnishing of documents. The Tribunal remitted all issues back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish details and judicial precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed its return for AY 2016-17 declaring income and a carried forward loss. The AO observed a capital loss of Rs.2,65,15,577/- from the sale of immovable property in the UK. The assessee used a conversion rate of Rs.101.40 for indexed cost of acquisition, which the AO recalculated using Rs.80.20, reducing the loss to Rs.1,58,10,832/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and in confirming the AO's action regarding the conversion rate for calculating capital loss on UK property. The core issue is the correct method for calculating indexed cost of acquisition and the treatment of currency fluctuations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “C”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Subrahmanya
For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kr. Singh
Hearing: 15.10.2025Pronounced: 10.11.2025

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 09.12.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 26.11.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1) The order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2) The Appellant denies himself to be assessed to a capital loss of Rs.1,58,10,832/- against the returned loss of Rs.2,65,15,577/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in condoning the delay in filing appeal that delay was due to lack of professional advice and beyond the control of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the taxing right on gains on immovable property as per the DTAA between India and UK vests with UK, i.e the place where the property is situated on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the gain/loss alone was to be converted as per rule 115 and the computation of capital gains was in pound sterling and the loss arrived at was correctly stated as per the conversion rate on the facts and circumstance of the case.

6) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital loss accrued outside India was disclosed in the return of income only for the purpose of disclosure and no reduction of loss called for, since the setoff would be against gains in the UK on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that details of the residential status of the appellant was filed during the assessment proceedings and available on records on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the penalty appeal was filed within time and the appellant was not properly advised to challenge the assessment order and thus has been diligent in passing the appellate remedy on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9) The learned CTT(A) failed to admit the fresh grounds of appeal/claim for the first time as held in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383(SC) on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds, to file detailed written submissions and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal.

11) In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief may be granted in the interest of justice and equity.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 22.07.2016 declaring income of Rs.14,49,820/-. Assessee has also claimed loss of current year to be carried forward at Rs.2,65,15,577/-. Case selected through scrutiny followed by validly serving statutory notices. Assessee made submissions to the details called for by ld. Assessing Officer (AO). Ld. AO observed that the assessee has declared capital loss of Rs.2,65,15,577/- from sale of immovable property located in United Kingdom. Ld. AO observed that assessee has purchased the immovable property in question at 2,70,000 British Pound (GBP) on 27.08.2008 and sold on 24.09.2015 at GBP 2,40,000, thus incurring loss of 30,000 GBP (without indexation). Ld. AO observed that the assessee while calculating the indexed cost of acquisition applied the conversion rate of GBP to Indian rupee on the date of sale transaction. However, when ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the reasons for taking the basis of indexed cost of acquisition of the rate of GBP as on the date of sale but assessee failed to respond. Accordingly, ld. AO recalculated the indexed cost of acquisition by applying the conversion rate of British Pound at Rs.80.20 as against Rs.101.40 applied by the assessee and reduced the capital loss figure to Rs.1,58,10,832/-.

4.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but on one hand did not condone the delay of 3961 days. However, he dealt with merits of the case confirming the action of AO. Assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Jayakumari and Smt. Dilharkumari Vs. CIT reported in (1991) 59 Taxman 171 (Karnataka) placed at pages 12 to 17 of the paper book. On delay, he submitted that the assessee was wrongly advised by the Tax Consultant and immediately after receiving the penalty order assessee has preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). Further, reference made to the various documents filed in the paper book running into 59 pages filed on 03.05.2025 as well as paper book filed on 03.06.2025 containing 17 pages.

6.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. So far as delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) is concerned, we on considering the reasons for condonation of delay filed before ld.CIT(A) and before this Tribunal has satisfied that assessee was prevented from ‘reasonable cause’ from filing the appeal within the stipulated time.

8.

So far as merits of the case are concerned, ld.CIT(A) has not given relief to the assessee observing that various documents have not been furnished by the assessee including the proof of residence in United Kingdom for the year under consideration. Even before ld. AO, assessee failed to file necessary details. Ld.CIT(A) has also observed that assessee has made claim of the alleged capital loss by way of filing revised computation of income. However, ld. AO has considered the said computation and has revised the figure of capital loss.

9.

So far as contention of ld. counsel for the assessee are concerned, it is stated that for the property purchased in GBP on 27.08.2008 when the exchange rate was Rs.80.20 but while calculating the indexed cost of acquisition, assessee has adopted the conversion rate at Rs.101.40 prevailing on the date of sale. By making such calculation was on one hand has not offered to tax the increase in exchange rate of Rs.21.20 on the GBP at 2,40,000 and which amounts to Rs.50,88,000 and on the other hand the assessee is claiming the indexed cost of acquisition by taking exchange rate of Rs.101.40. All these issues remained to be answered by the assessee by not filing any submissions to the notice issued by ld. AO and even before ld.CIT(A).

10.

Under these given facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to remit all the issues raised before us back to the file of ld. JAO before whom assessee shall furnish all the details which were called for in the past by ld.CIT(A) as well as ld. AO. Further, assessee shall also furnish the judicial precedents before ld. AO based on which ld. JAO on due consideration of facts of the case shall decide in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and all the effective grounds of appeal raised in the instant appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 10th day of November, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →